The URL can be used to link to this page

Agendas and Minutes c c c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 21,1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, E.J Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, John Thomson. Staff" Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: Margaret Clapp, Roberta Longmire Planning Commission members discussed the agenda It was agreed that item #4- Zoning Code Amendments Work session, will be postponed to tie January '99 meeting due to today's inclement weather Approval of Minutes. 98-13 MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY JOE HUDDLESTON TO APPROVIE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16,1998. MOTION CARRIED Public Communications' There were none Final Plat Review - Nisauallv Estates Phase 1; Division 1 & 2. Cathie Carlson went over the staff report. There was discussion 98-14 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY TOM GORMAN TO FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCil THE FINAL PLAT FOR NISQUAll Y ESTATES PHASE 1, DIVISION 1 & 2, WITH THE FOllOWING EXCEPTIONS The pedestrian easement improvements and street tree improvements have not been completed per the preliminary plat approval, the pedestrian easement be allowed to be constructed! at a later date, subject to liens on adjacent properties and the street tree plantings need to occur prior to the issuance of the six building permits in the subdivision MOTION CARRIED OTHER. Cathie reminded the Planning Commission members that the next two meetings fall on holidays, so the dates will change to Tuesday, January 19, and Tuesday, February 16, 1999 Meeting adjourned at 4 15 pm Respectfully submitted, Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission December 21 1998 Page 1 c c c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date January 13, 1999 To Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Final Plat for Prairie Heights, Division III Project Applicant: Rainier General Development, Inc. Proposal: 13 - Duplex Lots, Final Plat Approval for Prairie Heights, Division III Location: East side of Vancil Road south of Yelm Avenue Backaround The Yelm City Council approved, with conditions, a preliminary plat for the above referenced project on July 18, 1994 The project was approved for 13 lots and up to 13 duplex units. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission is required to review the Final Plat for compliance with the conditions of approval placed on the preliminary plat. After the Planning Commission has reviewed the final plat and is satisfied that all conditions have been meet and that all the improvements have been constructed to City standards, the Planning Commission shall forward the plat to the City Council for review and approval Conditions of Approval 1 The applicant shall contribute financially to the Five-Corners intersection improvement and/or the Y-2 Alternate Route as specified in the 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan Contribution is based on the number of automobile trips generated by this site during the PM peak hour Total PM Peak hour trips proposed to travel through the Five-Corners intersection are 9 trips at $300 00 per trip = $2,700 00 Paid in full. 2 The applicant shall agree to submit an agreement waiving any right the applicant might have to protest the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID or Latecomer's Agreement.) The applicant has completed all frontage improvements therefore a Waiver of Protest us not necessary Public Works Department Punch list 1 Stormwater swales have been constructed, however due to the time of year it is not pOSSible to seed them at this time The developer has installed sod on the floor of the swales, but the side slopes are exposed dirt. The Public Works Department has agreed to allow the developer to seed the slopes in April After April 30, 1999, no building permits will be issued until the developer seeds the slopes 2. The construction debris shall be removed prior to City Council review of the final plat. 3 The manufactured home shall be removed from the site prior to City Council review of the final plat. 4 The developer shall re-seal the internal street in the plat. The developer has bonded for this work. o o o PRAIRIE n '--/ HEIGHTS DIVISION THE SW1/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 30 3 (\ r--u ! I ! A PORTION OF CITY OF YELM SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, [DDIE M. TRUE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT OF PP;.IRI[ HEIGHTS DW J 1$ BASED UPON AN ACTUAL $URVfY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTiON OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 17 NOR1H, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE Wlu...AMETTf MERIDIAN, 1HA T THE DISTANCES AND COURSES $HOM>' HEREON ARE CORRECT, 1HAT THE MONuMENTS HAVE BEEN SET AND TH~T THE LOT CORNERS HAVE" BEEN STAKED ON THE GROUND ~TH 5/S" REBAR AND RED PLASTIC CAPS UNLESS OTHER~SE NOTED. EDDIE M. TRUE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR CERTlF7CA TE NO. 24227 DATE r..o '" CURVE TABLE NO. DEL TA RADIUS LENGTH --- Cl 90"29'49" 35.00 55.28 C2 89'30"IM J5.00 54.67 LINE T4BLE NO. BEARING -- L1 N 01'24'10" E L2 5 01'53'59" w LJ S 01'53'59 W L4 N B8'J5'50- 'It' L' 5 B~'3~r~0" E L5 N 01'24'09~ E DISTANCE 25.00 25.00 25.00 49.95 ~O.49 55.00 NE CORNER OF SWl/4 NE1/4 SECTION 30, T/7N, R2E. W.M. ....... ~ o 0;; TRACT 4 55-0582 LOT 3 15' UTILITY EAx:MENT ALONG ALL LOT FRONTAGE @ .... '" ...J tL Z :::> 20' STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT S 88.J5'50" E 667.61 I 185.00 78.00 ~ 78.00 ~ 78.00 /30 ~l g ~ ~ g ~ 8 ~ g 88 h6 '"'" 7 "''" 8 ~~ 9 1ri8_.1O ~I~ ~ ~ 52 i5 - C n ~~~~-MOO~ ~~~ n~ 5 BB"JS.5D' [ ~ BIRKLAND STREET SE - 5OJ.5J - ~~~!J:t)-ro~u- c~~ ~ ~QQ.~ ~QQ.l...l 75.DD.l.J (5 g.W") .1/") g .~ 8 g~ 8 If) I I 20130 'iI '" Yl 4 Yl '" J Yl '" 2 ",-'" oj 7 1< 8 18 -L ~ 01 0; C 0) C 0, 015 01 c ~ I I o I 8500 :z 7500 7500 7600 ' J- ~ C C "DO" --I / I ---- jl8 :5 BB"J5.50i[ "JOI: NIDI~J.59' [ JOO / / f 2 " 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 / / \----- I~ _L_~Lj~::r_~~/~~-L_//,/" \ 3 t- - ~ _BIR~~T!'EET :?:E -+- - ../ A-..... ) - - - -- ... / \ --"' ;:) r--'---.---'---T+--"- \ \ \ 4- g:1:i: I HEIGHTS DIVl 1 I I \ \ '-- I~ I I I I I \ \ ---- [ 12 I 11 I 10 I 9 I 8 I 7 \ 6 \ 5 I JO I I I I I \ \ 78.00 .k 78.00 77.59 " "" 72 ~ '0, I S? ~;V JI ~ rs:o~ ~ c J ~ I'" I __J 77.51 8 ~" g 11 ~ @ SCALE: 1 = 1 00. l-.- o 50 100 20' STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT NOTES TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST W M THURSTON COUNTY WASHINGTON SUBDIVISIO}" OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W:Jl. SCALE r '" 1000. I 200 S 88'46'SO~ E 2650.3.3 T 1- - - N;/4-S;;J; - ~251~ -'325.15 J ro. 5/B~ REBAR I ,_ 1.1.oJ I ~~l ~~)R:'~D~ I : ~ I ~ ~ J I 17m AUGUST 1993 ~ / 5 ~ I !ri ~ I : ~ L ~2~B7 -; ~2~B~- I . ~ 88'39'JO" f 1 ~ lO ~ ~ ~I .:~.J2.'O___[_ ~9.:: _ +;:~ I::2:=8J_ _ ~I~ IItf'ST 1/4 SEcnON 3D . , M IJ?2.5B FD. 5/B" RESAR DOWN 0.3' N 883210 W 2545.16 l' W OF CI.. /JILL KD. 1 1 TIED AUGUST 1993 ~, I I ~I I ",I ~I a , SOUTH 1/4 SECTION 30 I ~ ro. 2~ IRON PIPE W!7K I o 0.4'5)( 0.1' W OF ) ~ : ~E:~u~~El;~N[R J I I L - - - - - - - - _~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --.J 1. LOTS 12 AND IJ SHALL NOT ACCESS ONTO VANCIL ROAD $E. 24.4.52 26' STORM DRAlNAGE. EASEMENT 2. mE: MONUMENT CONTROL $HOlm FOR THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ACCOMPUSHED BY nfLD TRA\tERSE UT1UZ/NG A SE:VfN SECOND TOTAL STAT/ON (NIKON DTM A20). UNEAR AND ANGULAR CLOSURE OF THE 1RA~SES MET THE STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130090. s J. All. LOT CORNERS AND PLA T BOUNDM?Y ANGLE POINTS ~r STAKED ItfTH A 5\8" REBAR .A.ND RED CAP (7RUr LS 24-227) UNLESS N01ED OTHER'MSE ~~ ~:gl- ~ -0: ~ ,l4J a: "'2: ;';;::> ~ 2 o o '-.... J NORTHEAST S[CTJON JO ro. J" SURFACE BRASS DISK; GPS /2: 17" E. OF CL OF CRE[K S7RITT TIED AUGUST 1993 E"AST 1/4 SECTION JO ro. J' SURFACE BRASS DISK, INERTIAL 11788 CL OF MORRIS RD. 11m AUGUST 199J MONUMENT SET SET .3" SURFACE BRASS DISK (BERNTSEN RB SERIES) W/PUNCH PER CITY OF YELM STANDARDS ADDRESS SCHEDULE FOR PRAIRIE HEIGHTS DIVISION 3 ALL ADDRESSES ARE: uu BIRKLAND STREET SE YELM. WASHINGTON 9B597 FOUND 5/8" REBAR AND CAP LS 24227 SET PER SURVEY OF BLA-Bl1J UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED LOT NUMBER 1 2 J . 5 . 7 B 9 10 11 12 IJ MERIDIAN = GRID BEARING ON EAST UNE OF NE 1/4 SECnON .30 FROM INERnAL #lBB TO GPS #2 WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATES/SOUTH ZONE I I ~I -, I - - - - - - - - - - - 557.29_ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ ----L 651.29 329 S 8B.32'IO~ f - -13--;;58- - --f- - - - - JDfi HOUSE OR UNIT NUMBER 15317 115311 115J05 162J9 162Jl 16232 16240 16J06 15J12 16J18 15324 15JJO 15JJS LEGEND E TRUE & ASSOC LAND SURVEl1NG P o. BOX 90B YELM. WASHINGTON 98597 (360) 45B-2894 PAGE TWO OF TWO SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEET 2 OF 2 DEDlCATION. APPROVALS PLAT BOUNDARY AND LAYOUT c c ('\ o City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date January 13, 1999 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Manufactured homes - Chapter revisions Enclosed you will find two copies of Chapter 17 63, the original titled Mobile/Manufactured Homes and a draft chapter titled Manufactured Homes (slightly modified from December's draft.) I have completely changed the layout in an effort to make it more user friendly, which does not allow for the normal procedure of including all the changes within one document and illustrating those changes by strike through and underlined text. However I have indicated questions in bold behind some of the new text or issues that need more discussion and clarification by the Planning Commission Please bring your matrix from the November meeting (copies will be available at the meeting) c c c DRAFT Chapter 17 63 MANUFACTURED HOMES Sections 1763010 1763020 1763030 1763040 1763050 1763070 1763080 1763095 Intent Definitions I Designated manufactured home requirements Manufactured hom~ subdivision development standards Manufactured hom~ subdivision --Review Manufactured hom~ community--Development standards I Manufactured home community--Site plan review I Manufactured home community design standards--Stormwater runoff I 17.63.010 Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to I Permit the location of man~factured homes as a permanent form of dwelling unit in certain districts and as an accesso~ use or a temporary use in certain other districts, I I Provide standards for the development and use of manufactured homes appropnate to their location and their use as p~rmanent, accessory or temporary facilities, I I Designate appropriate locations for such dwelling units, Ensure a high quality of dLelopment for such dwelling units to the end that the occupants of manufactured homes and tl;1e community as a whole are protected from potentially adverse impact of such development or use, A. B C D E. Provide for city review of proposed manufactured home communities and subdivisions, F Make a distinction between manufactured home communities and manufactured home subdivisions, and their de~elopment and occupancy characteristics I 17.63.020 Defmitions. A. i "Designated Manufactured Home" means a manufactured home on an individual parcel that is used for residential purposes. It is a single-family dwelling built according to the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 "Facia" means a type of Jainscoting which encloses the lower part of the manufactured home, I covering wheels and undercarriage I "Footing" means that portion of the support system that transmits loads directly to the soil I I "Ground set" means the irlstallation of manufactured homes with crawl space elevation three inches or more below ele~ation of exterior finished grade I I "Main frame" means the ~tructural component on which is mounted the body of the I B C D E. 17 63 - 1 DRAFT F manufactured home "Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling built according to the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 A manufactured home includes plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems, and is built on a permanent chassis. o G "Mobile home" means a factory-built dwelling built prior to the enactment of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards H "Manufactured housing community" means a residential development typified by single ownership of land within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership Home sites within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary leasehold rights 1. "Manufactured home subdivision" means an area of land, platted in accordance with the subdivision or platting regulations of the city and the state of Washington, in which each parcel or lot is designed and intended to be owned in fee by a person or persons also owning and occupying the manufactured home J Modular home means a structure constructed in a factory of factory assembled parts and transported to the building site in whole or in units which meets the requirements of the Uniform Building code This includes prefabricated, panelized, and modular units shipped either preassembled or assembled at the site K. "Pier" means that portion of the support system between the footing and the Manufactured home, exclusive of caps and shims. o L "Support system" means a combination of footings, piers, caps and shims that will, when properly installed, support the mobile/manufactured home 17.63.030 Designated Manufactured Home Requirements. Manufactured housmg units placed on a lot outside of a manufactured home subdiviSIOn or manufactured home community shall comply with the following requirements. A. Permitted Use A designated manufactured home is a primary use on existing lots m all reSIdential dIStricts (R-4, R-6 and R-14 ) B Foundation. Homes shall be set below grade on ribbon-footings and a permanent foundation shall be constructed around the perimeter No more than twelve (12) feet of the perimeter foundation shall be visible or above the finish grade of the lot. Permanent foundation required in existing code, this sections adds the language regarding setting of the home and the fmished grade. C Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections with a total WIdth of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thirty-six (36) feet. Do we want to add flexibility to allow for smaller units especially in areas where existing stick built homes are smaller than a double-wide? See D below. 17 63 - 2 o c c c DRAFT D... Compatibility with Site-Built Housmg~anufactured housing shall be compared to site-built bmlsing in the neighborhood within the same zoning district. Approval for the manufacture home shall not be granted unless it is fouru:LthaL~manufactured home IS substantially similar in size, siding, material, roof pitch, roof materiaLallilgeneral appearance to the site-built housing which may be permitted by the zomng and/or building code in the neighborhood in the same zoning district. At the last meeting there was mixed response to this issue, as written it would require the applicant to consider compatibility with existing site-built housing unique to each neighborhood rather than the code having a section on each item, such as not allowing metal siding or roormg. E. Age of a Manufactured Home The age of a manufactured home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maximum of five years at the time of installation. F As an accessory use for security or maintenance personnel in the following districts, subject to site plan review. 1 Heavy commercial zone (C-2), 2. Industrial/ warehouse district (I/W), 3 Industrial district (I), 4 Open space/institutional district. G As temporary or emergency use in. 1 Any district as part of a constructIOn project for office use of construction personnel or temporary living quarters for security personnel for a period extending not more than ninety days beyond completion of construction. A thirty day extensIOn may be granted by the city manager upon written request of the developer and upon the manager's finding that such request for extension is reasonable and in the public interest; 2. Any district as an emergency facility when operated by or for a public agency, 3 In the open space/institutional district where a community need is demonstrated by a public agency such as temporary classrooms or for security personnel on school grounds 17.63.040 Manufactured Home Subdivision Requirements. The following requirements apply to manufactured home subdivisions A. Permitted Use As a primary use in the following districts, provided the subdivision is not less than five nor more than twenty acres in the 1 Low-density residential district (R-4), 2 Moderate-density residential district (R-6), 3 As part of a planned residential development as provided for in Chapter 17 60 of this 17 63 - 3 DRAFT title B Foundation. Homes shall be set below grade on ribbon-footings and a permanent foundation shall be constructed around the perimeter No more than twelve (12) feet of the perimeter foundation shall be vIsible or above the finish grade of the lot. Same requirement for designated manufactured homes. o C Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections with a total width of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thIrty-six (36) feet. New Language - Minimum size requirements in a Master Planned Community or Planned Residential Community may be waived by the City Council. Should the manufactured homes below the minimum size be limited to a percentage of the total units allowed, i.e the density allows 200 units, any combination of stick-built, multi-family and manufactured homes. If the code allowed for 25% of the homes to be below the minimum width standards for manufactured homes that would allow for 50 single wide manufactured homes. (20% = 40 units, 15% = 30 units, and 10% = 20 units) D Lot Size and Width. The minimum lot size and width for a manufactured home in a subdivision shall be as follows. added language allowing lot averaging. 1 Low-density residential district (R-4) - 5,000 square foot average lot SIze with a fifty (50) foot minimum width. 2 Moderate-density residential district (R-6) - 4,000 square foot average lot SIze with a fifty (50) foot minimum width. E. Setbacks Setbacks shall be those of the underlying residential district. o F Development Coverage Development coverage shall be that of the underlying residential district. G Development standards A manufactured home subdivision shall be subject to the same land development and site development standards that apply to conventional subdivisions H Open Space At least ten percent (10 %) of the gross parcel shall be dedicated as open space and located in a centralized location or locations for recreational uses, as required by YMC, Chapter 16 14, Parks and Open Space 1. Age of a Manufactured Home The age of a manufactured home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maximum of five years at the tIme of installation. 17.63.050 Manufactured home subdivision--Review. All manufactured home subdivisions shall be reviewed and approved according to the proVISIons of YMC, Title 16, Subdivisions 17.63.070 Manufactured housing community - development standards. The following reqUIrements apply to manufactured housing communities 17 63 - 4 o c c c DRAFT A Permitted Use As a primary use in the following districts, provided the manufactured housing community is not less than three acres nor more than fifteen acres in the 1 Moderate-density residential district (R-6), 2 High-density residential district (R14), with a maximum density of six umts per acre B Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections with a total width of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thirty-six (36) feet. This is the current requirement in the existing code, do you want to continue to regulate size inside a community? C Setbacks Setbacks shall be those of the underlying residential district. Yard setbacks along the penmeter of the property shall be in addition to the required buffer D Development Coverage Development coverage shall be that of the underlying residential district. E. Lot Size and Width. The minimum lot size and width for a manufactured home in a community shall be as follows. 1 Mimmum space area. four thousand square foot average, 2 Minimum width. forty feet; 3 Minimum depth. eighty feet; F Buffering A Minimum twenty-five (25) foot, Type I Landscape Buffer or a fifteen (15) foot Type II Landscape Buffer and a 6' solid fence Should we have one requirement or leave the option to the applicant. If you go with one requirement, the most effective screening would be the 6' solid fence with a 15' landscape buffer. The buffer would be required on the outside of the fence. G Open Space At least ten percent (10 %) of the gross parcel shall be dedicated as open space and located in a centralized location or locations for recreational uses, as required by YMC, Chapter 16 14, Parks and Open Space H. Age of a Manufactured Home The age of a Manufactured home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maximum of five years at the time of installation. 1. Access 1 Each Manufactured home site shall have access from an interior dnve or roadway only 2 Access to the manufactured home community shall be limited to not more than one driveway from a publIc street or road for each two hundred feet of frontage J Parking 17 63 - 5 DRAFT 1 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17 72 of this title 2 On-street parkmg - Minimum seven (7) foot parkmg on each side of the street or minimum seven (7) foot parking on one side of the street and a parkmg area for quests of at least one space for each five homes Parking areas shall be located in a centralized location or locations Needs further discussion o K. Interior Streets 1 No manufactured home commumty shall be constructed to block connecting streets shown or proposed as part of the Yelm comprehensive plan. 2 All interior private streets of the community shall have minimum eleven (11) foot driving lanes Needs further discussion. 3 Manufactured home communities shall connect with traffic and pedestrian ways on all abutting or connecting streets 4 All streets, roads and driveways shall be paved to a standard of construction acceptable to the public works department. Interior pedestrian walkways, carports and parking areas shall be paved. L. Pedestrian Walkways Minimum four (4) foot internal walkway shall connect each space with common areas, internal roads, public streets and parking areas All walkways must be separated, raised, or protected from vehicular traffic and provide access for handicapped persons Needs further discussion. M Accessory Buildings o 1 Buildings or structures accessory to individual manufactured homes are permitted, including enclosed carports, provided that the total development coverage of the space shall not exceed the development coverage permitted in Section 17 63 120 2 Buildings or structures accessory to the manufactured home commumty as a whole, and intended for the use of all manufactured home occupants are permitted, provided the building area not exceed one-fourth of the common open space area 17.63.080 Manufactured home community--Review. All manufactured home communities shall be reviewed and approved according to the provisions of YMC, Chapter 17 84, Site Plan Review 17.63.095 Manufactured home community design standards--Stormwater runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retained, treated and disposed of on site or disposed of in a system designed for such runoff and which does not flood or damage adjacent properties Systems designed for runoff retention and control shall comply with specifications provided by the city and shall be subject to its review and approval, and shall, moreover, comply with Chapter 5 of the Yelm Development Regulations, Drainage Design and Erosion Control Standards for the City of Yelm. 17 63 - 6 o o Chapter 17 63 MOBILE/MANUF ACTURED HOMES Sections: 1763010 Intent 17 63 020 DefImtions 17 63 030 PermItted where 17 63 050 Mobile homes--Deve10pment gwdelmes 17 63 055 Mobile home subdivision--Review 17 63 060 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Site area 17 63 070 Mobile home subdiVision design standards--Lot requirements 17 63 080 Mobile home subdivisiOn design standards--Off-street parking 17 63 090 Mobile home subdivlSlon design standards--Open space 1763 100 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Accessol)' buildings 1763 105 Mobile home park Site plan review 1763 110 Mobile home park design standards--Area and density 17 63 120 Mobile home park deSign standards--Site reqwrements 17 63 130 Mobile home park design standards--Off-street parking 17 63 140 Mobile home park design standards--Open space 17 63 150 Mobile home park design standards--Accessol)' buildings and structures 1763 160 Mobile home park design standards--Landscapmg and screening 17 63 170 Mobile home park design standards--Ingress and egress 1763 180 Mobile home park design standards--Intenor street dimensions 17 63 190 Mobile home park design standards--Surfacing requirements 1763.200 Mobile home park design standards--Stormwater runoff C 17.63.010 Intent. It is the mtent of tlus chapter to A. Permit the location of mobile homes as a permanent form of dwellmg urnt m certaIn distncts and as an accessol)' use or a temporary use m cectam other distncts, B PrOVide standards for the development and use of mobile homes appropnate to their location and their use as permanent, accessol)' or temporary facihties; C. Designate appropnate locations for such dwellmg urnts; D Ensure a high quality of development for such dwelling umts to the end that the occupants of mobile homes and the community as a whole are protected from potentially adverse lll1pact of such development or use; E. Provide for city review of proposed mobile home parks and subdivisions; F Make a disbnction between mobile home parks and mobile home subdiVisions, and their development and occupancy characteristics. 17.63.020 Definitions. A. "Facia" means a type ofwamscotmg wluch encloses the lower part of the mobile home, covenng wheels and undercamage. B "Footing" means that portion of the support system that transmits loads directly to the soil. C. "Ground set" means the mstallation of mobile homes With crawl space elevation three inches or more below elevation of exterior fImshed grade. D "Mam frame" means the structural component on wluch is mounted the body of the mobile home. E. "Pier" means that portion of the support system between the footing and the mobile home, exclusive of caps and shims. c 17 63 - 1 ,/ F "Support system" means a combmatlon of footIngs, piers, caps and slums that will, when properly mstalled, support the mobile/manufactured home. G "Mobile/manufactured home" means a velucular, portable structure(s) built on a chasSIS designed to be used as a residential dwellmg, and wluch is not deSigned to be permanently affixed to a foundation and 0 contammg plumbmg, waste disposal and electncal systems sunilar to conventional homes, and wluch bears an 1DSIgrna ISSUed by a state or federal regulatory agency md1cating that the mobile/manufactured home complies With all applicable construction standards of the U.S Department of Housmg and Urban Development deflDltlon of a manufactured home. Neither a commerCial coach, recreational velucle or factory-built home are a mobile/manufactured home. R. "Mobile home park" means an area of land, m smgle ownerslup, on wluch ground space IS made available for the location of mobile homes (or trailers) on a month-to-month or yearly lease basiS. Said mobile homes would generally be owned by the occupants who pay a fee for the use of the ground space. The mobile home umts remam essentially portable and may be moved from time to time. I. "Mobile home subdiVISion" means an area of land, platted m accordance With the subdiviSIOn or plattmg regulations of the City and the state of Waslungton, m wluch each parcel or lot 15 deSigned and mtended to be owned m fee by a person or persons also owning and occupymg the mobile home structure situated on said lot The mobile home units remain essentIally fixed on permanent foundations and generally are moved onto the Site in their entIrety or m sections only at the tJrne of inItial construction. Structures in mobile home subd1vlslons shall meet current HOD or UBC construction standards. 17.63.030 Permitted where. Mobile homes are pernntted as follows: A. As a pnmary use on mdivlduallots m all reSidential distncts (R-4, R-6 and R-14 ), B As a pnmary use m a mobile home subdiVISion of not less than five nor more than twenty acres m the' 1 Low-density reSidential d1stnct (R-4), 2. Moderate-density reSidential d1strict (R-6), 3 As part of a planned reSidential development as prOVided for m Chapter 17 60 of tlus title. C As a pnmary use m a mobile home park of not less than three acres nor more than fifteen acres. Mobile home parks are pernntted in the following districts: 1 Moderate-density reSidential d1stnct (R-6), o 2. High-denslty reSidential distnct (R14), with a maximum density of six units per acre. D As an accessory use for secunty or maintenance personnel in the followmg distncts, subject to site plan review' I Heavy commercial zone (C-2); 2. IndustnaV warehouse distnct (I/W); 3 Industnal d1stnct (I), 4 Open space/institutIOnal district. E. As temporary or emergency use m. 1 Any district as part of a constructJ.on project for office use of construction personnel or temporary lIVing quarters for security personnel for a penod extending not more than ninety days beyond completion of construction. A thirty day extension may be granted by the City manager upon wntten request of the developer and upon the manager's finding that such request for extension is reasonable and in the public intprest; 2. Any distnct as an emergency facility when operated by or for a public agency; o 17 63 - 2 c c c , ~ 3 In the open spacelinsututIonal distnct where a commumty need IS demonstrated by a pubhc agency such as temporary classrooms or for security personnel on school grounds. 17.63.050 Mobile homes--Development guidelines. A. The following sections of Chapter 296-150B, Washington Admmistratlve Code (WAC), as now or hereafter amended, are mcorporated by reference herem. 200 (General mstallation requirements), 210 (Inspections), 225 (Building site preparation), 230 (Foundation system footings), 235 (Foundation system piers), 240 (Foundation system plates and shims), 245 (FoundatlOn faCia), 250 (Anchonng systems) and 255 (Assembly). B Mobile home porches shall have the followmg mmrmum dunenslOns front, four feet by eight feet; rear, three feet by four feet C Mobile home Width shall be no less than a mmunum of twenty-four feet. D The age of a mobile home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maxnnum of five years at the tune of mstallatlOn. E. Mobile Home parks shall be exempt from requirements for permanent foundations. 17.63.055 Mobile home subdivision-Review. All mobile home subdiVisions shall be reviewed and approved according to the proVIsions of Title 16 of the Yelm Murnclpal Code. 17.63.060 Mobile home subdivision design standards-Site area. Mobile home subdiVISIOns shall comply With the same mmrmum performance and deSign standards of conventional housmg in the zoning districts in which they are permItted. However, mobile homes shall not be constructed or used as duplexes. The nunimum site for mobile home subdlVlSlOns shall be five acres. The maximum site for mobile home subd1vlslons shall be twenty acres. 17.63.070 Mobile home subdivision design standards-Lot requirements. The size and shape of lots shall be as follows, prOVided they adhere to the density requirements. A. In low-density distncts (R-4) 1 Mimmum lot area. five thousand square feet; 2. Mimmum lot Width. fifty feet; 3 Minimum front yard. On mmor streets, twenty-five feet, On major streets, thrrty-five feet, On flanking streets, fifteen feet; 4 Mimmum Side yards. Mimmum on one SIde, five feet, Minimum total both sides, twelve feet; 5 Mimmum rear yard. twenty-five feet; 6 Maxnnum buildmg coverage: thirty percent; B In moderate-density distncts (R-6)' 1 Minimum lot area, five thousand square feet, 2. M,immum lot Width, fifty feet, 3 Mimmum front yard. On minor streets, twenty-five feet, 17 63 - 3 On major streets, tlurty-five feet, On flankmg streets, fifteen feet; 4 MinImum side yards. Minimum on one side, eight feet, Mimmum total both sides, sixteen feet, 5 MinImum rear yard. twenty-five feet; 6 Maxunum building coverage: forty percent; 17.63.080 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Off-street parking. Off-street parkmg shall be provided m accordance With Chapter 17 72 oftlus title. 17.63.090 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Open space. Open space dedicatiOns or fees-m-heu thereof, shall be provided according to Chapter 14 12. 17.63.100 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Accessory buildings. Accessory buildmgs on mdiVlduallots shall comply with the regulations for such buildings as provided m the zonmg distnct in which the subdiVision is located. v o 17.63.105 Mobile home park site plan review. Mobile home parks shall be reViewed and approved as Site plans according to Chapter 17 84 17.63.110 Mobile home park design standards-Area and density. The mimmum site for a mobile home park shall be three acres. The maximum Site for a mobile home park shall be fifteen acres. The maxnnum number of mobile homes per acre shall be SiX 17.63.120 Mobile home park design standards--Site requirements. The Size and shape of mdlvidual mobile home SiteS in mobile home parks shall be m accordance With the following: A. MinImum space area. four thousand square feet; 0 B MinImum Width. forty feet; C MinImum depth. eighty feet; D MinImum setback from street or access road. twenty feet; E. Maxmlum development coverage of space: fifty percent; F Not less than fifteen feet of space shall be maintamed between mobile home umts or any part thereof, nor shall any mobile home umt be closer than fifteen feet from any other buildmg m the park, or from the exterior property lme boundmg the park. 17.63.130 Mobile home park design standards--Off-street parking. Off-street parkmg shall be provided m accordance With Chapter 17 72 of tins title. 17.63.140 Mobile home park design standards-Open space. Open space dedicatiOns or fees-m-heu thereof shall be provided accordmg to Chapter 14 12. 17.63.150 Mobile home park design standards--Accessory buildings and structures. A. Buildings or structures accessory to mdividual mobile homes are permitted, mcluding enclosed carports, provided that the total development coverage of the space shall not exceed the development coverage penmtted m Section 17 63 120 B Buildings or structures accessory to the mobile home park as a whole, and mtended for the use of all mobile home-pccupants are permitted, provided the building area not exceed one-fourth of the common open space area. 17.63.160 Mobile home park design standards--Landscaping and screening. 17 63 - 4 o c c' c To comply With specific landscapmg reqmrement m Chapter 17 80 Refuse. I Refuse container screening shall be reqwred and be of a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of the associated structure, shall be at least as high as the refuse contamer, and shall m no case be less than six feet high. 2. No refuse contamer shall be permitted between a street and the front of a buildmg. 3 Refuse collectlon areas shall be designed to contam all refuse generated on Site and depOSited between collectiOns. DepOSited refuse shall not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. 17.63.170 Mobile home park design standards--Ingress and egress. A. B. A. Each mobile home Site shall have access from an mtenor dnve or roadway only B Access to the mobile home park shall be lumted to not more than one dnveway from a pubhc street or road for each two hundred feet of frontage. 17.63.180 Mobile home park design standards-Interior street dimensions. A. No mobile home park shall be constructed to block connectmg streets shown or proposed as part of the Yelm comprehensive plan. B All mtenor pnvate streets of the park shall have dunenslOns not less than. I 30 feet, as per Development Guidelines, Sectlon 4B.070; 2. Street With parkIng permitted, seven feet adwtional for each Side on wluch parkIng is permitted. C Mobile home parks shall connect With traffic and pedestrian ways on all abuttmg or connectmg streets. 17.63.190 Mobile home park design standards-Surfacing requirements. All streets, roads and driveways shall be deSigned and constructed consistent With the Yelm Development Guidelines. 17.63.200 Mobile home park design standards-Stormwater runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retained, treated and disposed of on Site or disposed of m a system designed for such runoff and wluch does not flood or damage adjacent properties. Systems deSigned for runoff retentlon and control shall comply With specifications provided by the city and shall be subject to its reView and approval, and shall, moreover, comply with Chapter 5 of the Yelm Development Regulatlons, Dramage DeSign and ErOSiOn Control Standards for the City of Yelm. 17 63 - 5 c c c 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 21,1998400 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - November 16, 1998 minutes enclosed 2 Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public hearings have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Final Plat Review Applicant: Harr Family Homes Proposal Final Plat for Nisqually Estates Phase I, Division I & II Location North side of Hwy 507 I south of Mill Road Staff report enclosed 4 Zoning Code Amendments' Worksession Worksession on Chapter 17 63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes Staff report enclosed 5 Other' January & February meeting dates 6 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, TUESDAY, JANUARY 19,1998,4:00 PM ~ ~ ------ c c c 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm Date December 10, 1998 To Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Final Plat for Nisqually Estates, Phase I, Division I & II Backaround The Yelm City Council approved, with conditions, a preliminary plat for the above referenced project on October 25, 1995 There were two original preliminary plat applications for the project, Nisqually Estates I and II with two separate property owners/applicants Each project received preliminary approval for 60 lots each The projects, Division I and II were purchased by Harr Family Homes Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission is required to review the Final Plat for compliance with the conditions of approval placed on the preliminary plat. After the Planning Commission has reviewed the final plat and is satisfied that all conditions have been meet the Planning Commission shall forward the plat to the City Council for review and approval Conditions of Approval The developer has made a slight modification to the internal Phasing lines, therefore the conditions of approval are a mixture of the two original preliminary plat approvals. Below is a list of the combined conditions of approval applicable to the revised phasing plan with staff responses on the status of completion for each condition Following the conditions of approval are other remaining issues regarding City development standards and Public Works Department punch list items Applicant: Harr Family Homes Proposal 61 - Lot, Final Plat Approval for Nisqually Estates Phase I, Division I & II Location West side of Hwy 507 south of the golf course 1 The applicant shall contribute financially to the Five-Corners intersection improvement and/or the Y-2 Alternate Route as specified in the 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan Contribution is based on the number of automobile trips generated by this site during the PM peak hour Total PM Peak hour trips proposed to travel through the Five-Corners intersection are 19 5 trips at $300 00 per trip = $5,850 00 The 19 5 trips reflect one-half of the cumulative impact from Nisqually Estates Divisions I and II to the 5-corners intersection The applicant shall agree to submit an agreement waiving any right the applicant might have to protest the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID or Latecomer's Agreement.) Paid in full for Phase I, Division I & II. c c c 2 The applicant shall be responsible for site frontage improvements to SR 507 conforming to a modified urban arterial standard The modified urban arterial from the centerline will included a 6' left turn lane section, a 12' traffic lane and a 17' stormwater treatment swale In addition a 10' utility easement will be provided The site frontage improvements may include a transit stop and shelter The location of the transit stop will be determined at the time of improvements and will consider other applicable developments in the area These improvements shall be deferred until other adjacent properties develop, so a single project can be implemented to avoid piece-meal construction The applicant shall agree to submit an agreement waiving any right the applicant might have to protest the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID or Latecomer's Agreement.) The applicant has submitted a signed and notarized Waiver of Protest agreeing to participate in the improvements as specified above. 3 The applicant shall construct a right-turn lane, per Yelm Development Guidelines, for the north entrance Prior to design and construction of a right-turn lane the applicant is required to execute a "Developers Agreement" with the Washington State Department of Transportation Completed, however due to slopes and constraints regarding crossing of the railway right-of-way this entrance was relocated to the center of the site along Hwy 507. 4 The applicant shall construct a right-turn taper, per Yelm Development Guidelines, for the south entrance Prior to design and construction of a right-turn taper the applicant is required to execute a "Developers Agreement" with the Washington State Department of Transportation Completed 5 A wetland area has been identified on the subject property and has been delineated by a professional wetland biologist using the Federal Manual for Identifvinq and Delineatinq Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989) The wetland has been classified using the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Ratinq System for Western Washinqton (1993 ) The wetland boundaries and classification have been confirmed in the field by City of Yelm staff The wetland boundaries have been surveyed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Washington The wetland in the northeast area of the site has been rated as a Category III wetland Pursuant to City of Yelm Ordinance 426, Interim Yelm Critical Areas Resource Lands, the buffer for a Category III wetland shall be 50 feet. Completed 6 The developer agrees to mitigate impacts to the Yelm School District pursuant to Mitigation Agreement, file #95082210116 recorded in Volume 2419, Page 38 The developer has agreed to pay the School District $650 00 for each single family dwelling unit. Completed. The SEPA mitigation of $65000 per unit is due when each building permit is issued by the City. 7 The applicant shall submit a Homeowners Agreement for the approval by the City The Agreement, at a minimum shall contain provisions for the homeowners joint ownership of Tracts G through I and Tract N and authorize the homeowners association to assess and collect fees for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities and pedestrian easements The c c c Homeowners agreement shall be referenced on the face of the plat and recorded with the final plat. Completed. 8 Open Space, Tracts J and K, shall be dedicated to Thurston County Parks Department. Waiting for verification from Thurston County Parks Department. 9 Original Phase II Condition A pedestrian easement shall be dedicated between lots 111 and 112 and lots 93 and 94 and shown as Tract N on the face of the plat. The pedestrian easement shall be six feet wide, signed, graveled and fenced along lot 1 and 2's property line The fence shall be six feet in height, of solid material and setback twenty feet from the public right- of-way The homeowners association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the pedestrian easements Original Phase I Condition A pedestrian easement between lots 1 and 2 and shown as Tract L on the face of the plat shall be held in common by the Homeowners Association The pedestrian easement shall be six feet wide, signed, graveled and fenced along lot 1 and 2's property line The fence shall be six feet in height, of solid material and setback twenty feet from the public right-of-way The homeowners association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the easement With the change in lot configuration and phasing lines the pedestrian easements still exist but are between different lots. With the relocation of the northern access to the center of the site the pedestrian easement between lots 1 and 2 is no longer necessary The applicant has requested that the requirement for a wood fence be amended to a cyclone fence The change is requested for safety - a cyclone fence provides better visibility Staff supports this request. Also the developer has requested that the improvements to the pedestrian easements be postponed until such time houses are constructed on the adjacent lots To ensure the construction of the pedestrian easements, staff recommends liens against the adjacent properties. Sale of the lots/homes could not be completed until the lien has been satisfied and removed by the City 10 Prior to final plat approval the applicant will execute a Boundary Line Adjustment with the adjacent property owner of Nisqually Estates Div I, parcel #21725111300, to reflect the property lines as shown on the preliminary plat drawing Completed 11 The applicant shall secure a Highway Access Permit from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) prior to final plat approval Completed 12 WSDOT will only accept surface water runoff equal in quality and quantity to that of the predeveloped site Any additional surface water runoff generated, impacting State property, will require appropriate stormwater mitigation in accordance with the Department of Ecology's c c c Stormwater Management Manual Completed. 13 Final drainage report, calculations and design must meet the standards of the Yelm Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Completed. 14 The applicant shall secure from Thurston County, a Basic Trail Permit for ingress, egress and utilities across the Thurston County Yelm-Tenino Rail-Trail prior to final plat approval Completed. Waiting for verification that easements have been recorded. 15 The existing on-site sewage systems located on-site shall be abandoned per Article IV, Rules and Regulations of the Thurston County Board of Health Governing Disposal of sewage Waiting for verification, the final plat will not be forwarded to the City Council until verification is received 16 The existing wells on-site shall be abandoned per Department of Ecology standards and documentation submitted to the Thurston County Health Department for review Waiting for verification, the final plat will not be forwarded to the City Council until verification is received. 17 Water rights for the abandoned wells shall be dedicated to the City of Yelm A Water Rights Dedication form has been forwarded to the applicant. The completed form is required prior to recording of the final plat. 18 Thurston County Health Department fees shall be paid prior to final plat approval There are outstanding fees payable to Thurston County Health Department. The applicant will provide the City with verification of payment in full prior to forwarding the final plat to the City Council 19 The project applicant shall design, per Yelm Development Guidelines, and extend the current Step Sewer line from Mill Road The developer may enter into a latecomer's agreement for future connections into the line installed for the Nisqually Estates Div II project. The City has committed 30 ERU's to the applicant for the proposed project. The final plat map shall show the sewerage phasing plan The S.T E.P sewer line has been extended in accordance with the Yelm Development Guidelines. A latecomer's agreement has been submitted and will be before the City Council for approval concurrently with the final plat approval 20 The project applicant shall design, per Yelm Development Guidelines, and extend the current water line from Mill Road The developer may enter into a latecomer's agreement for future connections into the line installed for the Nisqually Estates Div II project. The water line has been extended in accordance with the Yelm Development Guidelines. c c ('- v A latecomer's agreement has been submitted and will be before the City Council for approval concurrently with the final plat approval 21 The applicant shall develop the Yelm-Tenino Trail corridor along their property frontage The improvements shall consist of a 10 foot paved surface in the center of the 17 foot trail corridor Improvements shall meet Thurston County Rural Trail Improvements have been constructed however the City requires verification from the County that the improvements have been completed to their satisfaction. The final plat will not be forwarded to the City Council until verification is received. 22. The applicant and the adjacent property owner to the west, Sherril MacNaughton, have a mutual agreement to fence the western property line down to Tract F and the eastern property line of Tract F Tract F shall be deeded as per the "Memorandum of Understand" between Ms MacNaughton and Mark Carpenter The applicant shall comply with the agreement prior to final plat approval The developer is completing the construction of a fence along the western property line The fence shall be complete prior to the final plat review by the City Council City Development Standards and Public Works Department Issues 1 City street standards require street trees be planted 35' on center Street trees have not been planted at this time Staff recommends the City accept a Letter of Credit and Assigned Savings from the developer for 1% times the cost of the trees and installation in the planter strips along the entrances and around the stormwater facilities The release of the assigned savings would occur when the trees were install Also no building permits would be issued beyond the first 5, which are for model homes, until the trees are planted For the remaining required street trees on the internal roads staff recommends that a condition be placed on each building permit requiring one street tree be planted in the planter strip in front of said lot. 2 Punch list items A few items remain on the Public Works Punch list. The final plat will not be forwarded to the City Council for review until all punch items have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. I I , I 1~4 ~ 25, HJ/4 srencw 2:5 Fa. SnwE lION If/)( ON SUVACE CICC. ,... FILE NO. NISQUALLY ESTATES DIVISION 2, PHASE 1 A PORTION OF THE NWl/4 AND NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, w'M. CITY OF YEI.M!3 TIiURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON BL~-f 1-12 S 8914'42'" C 265J.56 ',Oi.. f 1. PO. 49.3 Cl ~: ~. .., ~ li " !! s tl9"J4',,:r E: 51<<>> L7 lor..... ...... 5 lBH'4Z- E .J.43.06 ... , ~I I I I I I I I I I I L 1010 I I I , I I I I I I '" ~ :j61 I 62 I 63 I 64 I 65 I 66 I 67 I 68 , 69 I 70, 71 I ~ - ! ! ' I I I , I I I I :" I I '" , I I ,- I I I I- I 74176 78 8 ~ " ;II TABLE ~ BC/IRINi Lf S 'S'C'3'. r us 2O"5'zg. ( LJ S 00',35'02. r L4 ~ 51''''''SO. r L~ S 5f'JJ'50" r U S 38'26 "0" E L7 H 00',36'02" C L" 5 ag.'....2. C U H 78'05"42" C LfO N SO'O,'W E Lff H.J2'2"Z'. E \. ~ LfZHOO'.f5',rC ~AVE. BELfJ H OO..,',r C - - L14 S SS"."U" E LIS S oo'.f5',<<", I' OlSTNCE ".00 70.79 27.00 20.00 10.70 ".00 "." 23.30 fS.J.3 4'.27 78.115 27.00 27.00 '.26 ~.6' " ~ Cf/f. SD:OOH 25 I 'k'{:;. REBAR ~l @--__----+-_____ 30 5 8!lU'c" E 2649.58 25 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE .. EDDIE II.. JJM: IfERfBY aRlFY JHAT 1HS PlAT OF NlSQ(JAUY [STAlES DI~ Z. PHASE r. IS BAsm l.PCW Nt ACJUAl ~ NKJ .suemtSIGW OF A PORlKIN OF SECTJON 25, rotIHSt6P 17 NORTH. RN<<;C , EAST OF lHf; II.L.AoIETlE AIERJOCAH. lHAT >>E DlSTNK:ES AND cot.fiSES' SHOtIN' I-EREOH ~ CCRRECT. JHAT THE IKIHUIIENTS HAVE BFEH SET AN) THAT IJE LOT CORNERS HA~ l1EEH STMm ON H: GROI.JMJ wm 5"'" RflMR NIJ RED PU.S1IC CAPS tN..ESS DnERMtSt NOTED. ~ ~ " v &...-81# ~ ~ fIDE II. JRt.t:;. REQSlERfD lAM) ~ CERlFJCAJE NO. 24227 SCN..E: 1--'00 ITET DRalJ ~tmoo ."". ...-._----..! o 50 100 200 JlRftlfJiAN NORTH ~ OF THE NCI/" OF sccnoo 25 AS PER fJO(MJAIf'( lH: ADJUSTIIfNT BlA-U42 RECORDED W KXlME" " OF BlA's. PAGE 41 I I @ UXlEND o ~~~~~-~M~~ CURVE: TABLE 1<<). DELTA ,. 1~~ 2 45'2,,'OV' J ~ " '5S'45" 5 3f'''''.JB'' SHEU , OF " DEDfCA OON, APPROVALS ~ DESCRrPDOH SHEET 2 OF .. 8O(N)MY CONlRa. IiHEEr ~ OF .. PUT lAl'OOT AND DlllENSONS SHC.CT .. OF .. PLAT LAl'tlVT N#O HOJES E. TRUE & ASSOC. LAND sURl'E1'IM1 P.O. BOX 908 n:LI( "ASHINGTON 96597 (lOW) 458-2894 SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS SHEET INDEX; RN>,US m:oo 200.00 200.00 227.00 "00 lEl<m1 :i7.i5" ,..... 20.., "'>7 :>:1.79 o o o t I ~ l ~I~ ~ ~I;:j ~ ~I~ ~ ~I~ I I 93-i1S22 HV , , I I ~5'24. , ~~1J~1' 42: 43 I w/l< ai S1JfIFAa: I I, 44 DEC.f99f I l-.--l --J...__ 41 NISQUALLY ESTATES DIVISION 1, PHASE 1 TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, w,M. THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON A PORTION OF THE Nlf1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 25. CITY OF YELIl a BtA-11.f2 s t!!n4'd E 2lS51.S5 ,'CL '1. PC 493 Cl :.&~ 1-. 1-. .~ ~ i .. !i IOt.f...l3 191.08 v s lIfn4'42" E 51<<'>> ... I \,1 I i72H73: I ~ I ~' I ii' . . ," I I I I I I I :"r- 145146 147: 48 :49: 50 :51~;61 I : : :.: 1 ! ~- I I I , I 74 I 75 , 76 , I , ) I I I I I I I I , I I I : 62 : 63 : 64: 65 : 66: 67 : 68 : 69 : 70: 71 I I I I I I I I , I 40 ;t==~~ 38 o ~ I 37 36 TABLE ~ BCNfIN:; l1 S 89'.c.!'J't- .. L2 S 2O.",zg- E LJ S 00' 3S '02" .. L4 S .5""""50. .. L5 5 5"33'50" .. L.6 S 36'26 "0. E 1..7 H 00'.36 '02" E us ag'I4-'42" E U H 1e'OS '42. E. L 10 H 50'01 '46" E 1..11 H 32'2' '2'. E , ____ l'Z H 00....,.111" E ~A.VP:. BBUJ N OO'<fS'lr E -- l.,.fS&;l'f4'4Z"C L15 S 00'45'1'" . Ol5TNa ".00 70.79 27.00 20.00 00.70 65.00 3.61 23.30 fS.I3 41.27 ?a.ItS 27.00 27.00 0.26 33.151 ; ~ cr/. SEC1KNI 25 I FD. s~ REBAR 1 @-- _ _ -+- ~ ~ _ _ ..l30 S snz',u- E Z649.5B 25Ji SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE .. CDOE" JRUE;, IEREBY a1fTF'f lHAT MS PLAT OF IfSOIJAl.LY ESTATES Ol~ t. PHASE 1. ts ~ UPCW /IN ACllIAl. SlJR\oEY NID Sl.ISMiSKW a: A. PORlIOH OF SE.COON.2S. rotINSfUP '7 NORlH, RN#GE I EAST OF DiE' K1.AMETlI' ~ tHAT ruE: DtSrAHCES NID COl.RSES SHOtfH fEREOH ME ~r. tHAT tHE IKHMOfTS HA~ BfDf SET JHD >>fAT K LOT CORNERS HA,\E FJEEN STAI<W ON THE GRaHJ 11TH 5;r REBM N#:J REI) PlASTIC CIPS UM.ESS 01lER*$E" HOTED. ~ li It EDDIE M. mu::. RfQS1ERED UMD Sl.fi\oE'l'O? CfRmcAJF NO. 24Z27 t ~ : ........ ~ ~:q ~Ii ~ ::IQ: I I ... " ~ DATE SCAlE '"-100 FEET ...-_----....! o 50 100 200 JlER1DIAN ~1H LK OF K HfJ/4 OF SECTKII 2S AS PER SOUIOARY LK AOM'llIDIT 8I.A-1142 RfXOI'<<)ED IN KX.LNf 11 OF aA's, PACE ~ I I @ CURVE T ABL E ,.". DEl.TA ,- ,~ 2 4S'24'0V" . 051S2'5S' 4 t5W..cs- 5 .....,..J8'" SHED" , OF .. DEDlCAlKlH. 1fPf'R(1lI},U LCCM. OESaFOOH SHfIT 2 OF .. ~y alHlRa. SHa:T 3 (:f 4 RAT LA\"OtIT IN) DINENSlOH5 SHECT .. OF .. PlAT LA\'tlfJT N<<J NOTES E. TRUE & ASSOC. LAND SURVKYIIIG P.O. BOX 908 YI2J( FAS1llNGTON gB597 (380) 45/l-28lU SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS SHEET INDEX: LEMml 41.i5 ,..... "'.., ......, 22.79 """US m:oo 200.00 200.00 227.00 "'-00 o o o 93-11521 c c (\ o 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm Date December 15, 1998 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Manufacture Homes - Chapter revisions Enclosed you will find two copies of Chapter 17 63, the original titled Mobile/Manufactured Homes and a draft chapter titled Manufactured Homes and stamped draft. I have completely changed the layout in an effort to make it more user friendly, which does not allow for the normal procedure of including all the changes within one document and illustrating those changes by strike through and underlining of text. However' have included questions in bold behind issues that need more clarification and discussion by the Planning Commission Please bring your matrix from the November meeting (copies will be available at the meeting). c c c Chapter 17 63 MANUFACTURED HOMES DRAFT Sections 1763010 1763020 1763030 1763040 1763050 1763070 1763080 1763095 Intent Definitions Designated manufactured home requirements Manufactured home subdivision development standards Manufactured home subdivision --Review Manufactured home community--Development standards Manufactured home community--Slte plan review Manufactured home community design standards--Stormwater runoff 17.63.010 Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to A. Permit the location of manufactured homes as a permanent form of dwelling unit in certain distrIcts and as an accessory use or a temporary use in certain other districts, B Provide standards for the development and use of manufactured homes appropriate to their location and their use as permanent, accessory or temporary facilities, C Designate appropriate locations for such dwelling units, D Ensure a high quality of development for such dwelling units to the end that the occupants of manufactured homes and the community as a whole are protected from potentially adverse impact of such development or use, E Provide for city review of proposed manufactured home communities and subdivisions, F Make a distinction between manufactured home communities and manufactured home subdivisions, and their development and occupancy characteristics 17.63.020 Defmitions. A. "Designated Manufactured Home" means a manufactured home on an individual parcel that is used for residential purposes It is a single-family dwelling built according to the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 B "Facia" means a type of wainscoting which encloses the lower part of the manufactured home, covering wheels and undercarriage C "Footing" means that portion of the support system that transmits loads directly to the soil D "Ground set" means the installation of manufactured homes with crawl space elevation three inches or more below elevation of exterior finished grade E. "Main frame" means the structural component on which IS mounted the body of the 17 63 - 1 ~ I\m~f:i~red home ~ F ! ~'~Ma~utaqtured home" means a single~family dwelling built according to the Federal 0 Manufifct\\red Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 A manufactured home includes plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems, and is built on a permanent chassis. G "Mobile home" means a factory-built dwelling built prior to the enactment of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards H "Manufactured housing community" means a residential development typified by single ownership of land within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership Home sites within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary leasehold rights 1. "Manufactured home subdivision" means an area of land, platted in accordance with the subdivision or platting regulations of the city and the state of Washington, in which each parcel or lot is designed and intended to be owned in fee by a person or persons also owning and occupying the manufactured home J Modular home means a structure constructed m a factory of factory assembled parts and transported to the building site in whole or in units which meets the requirements of the Uniform Building code This includes prefabricated, panelized, and modular units shipped either preassembled or assembled at the site K. "Pier" means that portIOn of the support system between the footing and the Manufactured home, exclusive of caps and shims o L. "Support system" means a combination of footings, piers, caps and shims that will, when properly installed, support the mobile/manufactured home 17.63.030 Designated Manufactured Home Requirements. Manufactured housing units placed on a lot outside of a manufactured home subdivisIOn or manufactured home community shall comply with the following requirements A. Permitted Use A designated manufactured home IS a primary use on existing lots in all residential districts (R-4, R-6 and R-14 ) B Foundation. Homes shall be set below grade on ribbon-footings and a permanent foundation shall be constructed around the perimeter No more than twelve (12) feet of the perimeter foundation shall be visible or above the finish grade of the lot. Permanent foundation required in existing code, this sections adds the language regarding setting of the home and the fmished grade. C Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections with a total width of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thirty-six (36) feet. Do we want to add flexibility to allow for smaller units especially in areas where existing stick built homes are smaller than a double-wide? See D below. 17 63 - 2 o o c c 0, ~..., .. ,- " "_'~""'" <,. . ;.- /' '.~ . ',' . - ~ u. Compatibility with Site-Built Housing Manufactured housing shall be compared to site-built housing in the neighborhood witbin the same zoning district Approval for the manufacture home shall not be granted unless it is found that the manufactured home is substantially similar in size, siding, material, roof pitch, roof materIal and general appearance to the site-built housing which may be permitted by the zoning and/or building code in the neighborhood in the same zoning district. At the last meeting there was mixed response to this issue, as written it would require the applicant to consider compatibility with existing site-built housing unique to each neighborhood rather than the code having a section on each item, such as not allowing metal siding or roormg. E. As an accessory use for security or maintenance personnel 10 the following districts, subject to site plan review' 1 Heavy commercial zone (C-2), 2. Industrial! warehouse district (I/W), 3 Industrial district (I), 4 Open space/institutional district. F As temporary or emergency use in. 1 Any district as part of a construction project for office use of construction personnel or temporary living quarters for security personnel for a period extending not more than ninety days beyond completion of construction. A thirty day extension may be granted by the city manager upon written request of the developer and upon the manager's finding that such request for extension is reasonable and in the public interest; 2 Any dIstrict as an emergency facility when operated by or for a public agency, 3 In the open space/institutional district where a community need IS demonstrated by a public agency such as temporary classrooms or for security personnel on school grounds 17.63.040 Manufactured Home Subdivision Requirements. The following requirements apply to manufactured home subdivisions A. Permitted Use As a primary use in the following districts, provided the subdivision is not less than five nor more than twenty acres in the 1 Low-density residential district (R-4), 2 Moderate-density residential district (R-6), 3 As part of a planned residential development as provided for in Chapter 17 60 of this title 17 63 - 3 ~'1:pS!.~ ~ (Ft ~ ~ \t;\:. 'i f'll \;;, .lH1 ~ i) t f' ~\:<\ ':t.' :~ ' B Foundation. Homes shall be set below grade on ribbon-footings and a permanent foundation shall be constructed around the perimeter No more than twelve (12) feet of the perimeter foundation shall be visible or above the finish grade of the lot. Same requirement for designated manufactured homes. o C Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections WIth a total WIdth of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thirty-six (36) feet. Mmimum size requirements in a Master Planned Community or Planned Residential Community may be waived by the City Council o Lot Size and Width. The minimum lot size and width for a manufactured home in a subdivision shall be as follows added language allowing lot averaging. 1 Low-density residential district (R-4) - 5,000 square foot average lot size with a fifty (50) foot minimum width. 2 Moderate-density residential district (R-6) - 4,000 square foot average lot size with a fifty (50) foot minimum width. E. Setbacks Setbacks shall be those of the underlying reSIdentIal dIStriCt. F Development Coverage Development coverage shall be that of the underlying residential district. G Development standards A manufactured home subdivision shall be subject to the same land development and site development standards that apply to conventional subdivisions o H Open Space Open Space dedications or fees-in-lieu thereof, shall be proVIded according to Chapter 14 12 I The age of a manufactured home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maximum of five years at the tIme of installation. 17.63.050 Manufactured home subdivision--Review. All manufactured home subdivisions shall be reVIewed and approved according to the provisions of YMC, Title 16, Subdivisions 17.63.070 Manufactured home community development standards. The following requirements apply to manufactured home communities A. PermItted Use As a primary use in the following districts, provided the manufactured housing community is not less than three acres nor more than fifteen acres in the 1 Moderate-densIty residential district (R-6), 2 High-density residential district (RI4), with a maximum density of six umts per acre B Size Manufactured homes shall be comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections 17 63 - 4 o c c c T with a total width of a least twenty-four (24) feet and a length of at least thirty-six (36) feet. Do you want to regulate size inside a community? C Setbacks Setbacks shall be those of the underlying residential district. Yard setbacks along the perimeter of the property shall be in addition to the required buffer D Development Coverage Development coverage shall be that of the underlying residential district. E. Lot Size and Width. The minimum lot size and width for a manufactured home in a community shall be as follows 1 Minimum space area. four thousand square feet; 2. Minimum width. forty feet; 3 Minimum depth. eighty feet; F Buffermg A Minimum twenty-five (25) foot, Type I Landscape Buffer or a fifteen (15) foot Type II Landscape Buffer and a 6' solid fence Should we have one requirement or leave the option to the applicant. If you go with one requirement, the most effective screening would be the 6' solid fence with a 15' landscape buffer. The buffer would be required on the outside of the fence. ~ G Open Space At least five percent (5 %) of the gross parcel shall be dedicated as private open space and located in a centralized location or locations for recreations uses, as required by YMC, Chapter 16 14, Communities and Open Space H The age of a Manufactured home, as reflected on the title, shall not exceed a maximum of five years at the time of installation. I Access 1 Each Manufactured home site shall have access from an interior drive or roadway only 2 Access to the manufactured home community shall be limited to not more than one driveway from a public street or road for each two hundred feet of frontage J Parking 1 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance With Chapter 17 72 of this title 2 On-street parking - Minimum seven (7) foot parking on each side of the street or minimum seven (7) foot parking on one side of the street and a parking area for quests of at least one space for each five homes Parking areas shall be located in a centralized location or locations Needs further discussion K. Interior Streets 1 No manufactured home community shall be constructed to block connecting streets 17 63 - 5 ~ $~?':. ",.b ")'\1:" "'J\~: r:~ J;~, 1',.\ ~\ ,..\~ \ shown or proposed as part of the Yelm comprehensive plan. o 2 All interior private streets of the community shall have minimum eleven (11) foot driving lanes Needs further discussion. 3 Manufactured home communities shall connect with traffic and pedestrian ways on all abutting or connecting streets 4 All streets, roads and driveways shall be paved to a standard of construction acceptable to the public works department. Interior pedestrian walkways, carports and parking areas shall be paved. L. Pedestrian Walkways Minimum four (4) foot internal walkway shall connect each space with common areas, internal roads, public streets and parking areas All walkways must be separated, raised, or protected from vehicular traffic and prOVIde access for handicapped persons Needs further discussion. M Accessory Buildmgs 1 Buildings or structures accessory to individual manufactured homes are permitted, includmg enclosed carports, provided that the total development coverage of the space shall not exceed the development coverage permitted in Section 17 63 120 2 Buildings or structures accessory to the manufactured home community as a whole, and intended for the use of all manufactured home occupants are permitted, provided the building area not exceed one-fourth of the common open space area. o 17.63.080 Manufactured home community--Review. All manufactured home communities shall be reviewed and approved accordmg to the provisions of YMC, Chapter 17 84, Site Plan Review 17.63.095 Manufactured home community design standards--Stormwater runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retained, treated and disposed of on site or disposed of in a system designed for such runoff and which does not flood or damage adjacent properties. Systems designed for runoff retention and control shall comply with specificatIons prOVIded by the city and shall be subject to its review and approval, and shall, moreover, comply with Chapter 5 of the Yelm Development Regulations, Drainage Design and Erosion Control Standards for the City of Yelm. 17 63 - 6 o o Chapter 17 63 MOBILEIMANUF ACTURED HOMES Sections 17 63 010 Intent 17 63 020 Defimtlons 17 63 030 Penmtted where 1763050 Mobile homes--Development gUldehnes 1763 055 Mobile home subdlvlslon--Revlew 17 63 060 Mobile home subdivIsion design standards--Slte area 1763070 Mobile home subdivIsIOn design standards--Lot requrrements 17 63 080 Mobile home subdtvlslon design standards--Off-street parkmg 17 63 090 Mobile home subdivIsion design standards--Open space 1763 100 Mobile home subdivlSlon design standards--Accessory buildings 17 63 105 Mobile home park site plan review 17 63 110 Mobile home park design standards--Area and density 1763 120 Mobile home park design standards--Slte requrrements 17 63 130 Mobile home park design standards--Off-street parkIng 17 63 140 Mobile home park design standards--Open space 17 63 150 Mobile home park design standards--Accessory builclmgs and structures 1763 160 Mobile home park design standards--Landscapmg and screemng 17 63 170 Mobile home park design standards--Ingress and egress 1763 180 Mobile home park design standards--Intenor street dimensions 17 63 190 Mobile home park design standards--Surfacmg requrrements 1763.200 Mobile home park design standards--Stormwater runoff C 17.63.010 Intent. It IS the mtent of tlus chapter to o A. Permit the locatIOn of mobile homes as a permanent form of dwelhng urnt m certam dlstncts and as an accessory use or a temporary use m certam other dtstncts, B ProVIde standards for the development and use of mobile homes appropnate to therr location and therr use as permanent, accessory or temporary facihtIes, C Designate appropnate locations for such dwellmg urnts, D Ensure a lugh qualIty of development for such dwellmg umts to the end that the occupants of mobile homes and the commumty as a whole are protected from potentially adverse unpact of such development or use, E. Provide for City review of proposed mobile home parks and subdiVISIOns, F Make a distInctlon between mobile home parks and mobile home subdtvlslons, and therr development and occupancy charactenstics. 17.63.020 Definitions. A. "FaCia" means a type ofwamscotmg wluch encloses the lower part of the mobile home, covenng wheels and undercamage. B "Footmg" means that portion of the support system that transmits loads drrectly to the soil. C "Ground set" means the mstallatlon of mobile homes With crawl space elevation three inches or more below elevation of extenor fimshed grade. D "Math frame" means the structural component on which is mounted the body of the mobile home. E. "Pier" means that portIon of the support system between the footIng and the mobile home, exclUSive of caps and slums. 17 63 - 1 F "Support system" means a combmatlon of footmgs, pIers, caps and shuns that will, when properly mstalled, support the mobile/manufactured home. G "Mobile/manufactured home" means a velucular, portable structure(s) built on a ChasSIS deSIgned to be 0 used as a reSIdential dwellmg, and WhICh IS not deSIgned to be permanently affixed to a foundation and contammg plumbmg, waste disposal and electncal systems sunilar to conventIOnal homes, and WhICh bears an mSIgma ISSUed by a state or federal regulatory agency mdIcatmg that the mobile/manufactured home comphes With all apphcable construction standards of the U S Department of Housmg and Urban Development defImtIOn of a manufactured home NeIther a commerCial coach, recreatIOnal velucle or factory-built home are a mobile/manufactured home. R. "Mobile home park" means an area of land, m smgle ownerslup, on wluch ground space IS made available for the locatlon of mobile homes (or trailers) on a month-to-month or yearly lease baSIS. Said mobile homes would generally be owned by the occupants who pay a fee for the use of the ground space. The mobile home umts remam essentIally portable and may be moved from tune to tune. I. "Mobile home subdIVISIon" means an area of land, platted m accordance With the subdiVISIon or plattmg regulations of the CIty and the state of Waslungton, m wluch each parcel or lot IS deSIgned and mtended to be owned m fee by a person or persons also owmng and occupymg the mobile home structure SItuated on SaId lot. The mobile home umts remam essentially fixed on pennanent foundations and generally are moved onto the SIte in therr entlrety or in sectlons only at the tune of wtIal construction. Structures m mobile home subdiVISIOns shall meet current HUD or UBC constructIOn standards. 17.63.030 Permitted where. Mobile homes are pemutted as follows A. As a primary use on mdJ.vIduallots m all reSIdential dIStnCts (R-4, R-6 and R-14 ), B As a pnmary use m a mobile home subdIVISIon of not less than five nor more than twenty acres m the' 1 low-densIty reSIdential distnct (R-4), 2. Moderate-densIty reSIdentIal distnct (R-6), 3 As part of a planned reSIdential development as proVIded for m Chapter 17 60 of tlus title. o C As a pnmary use m a mobile home park of not less than three acres nor more than fifteen acres Mobile home parks are pemutted m the followmg dJ.stncts 1 Moderate-densIty reSIdential dJ.stnct (R-6), 2. High-densIty reSIdential dIstrict (RI4), with a maximum denSIty of SIX umts per acre. D As an accessory use for secunty or mamtenance personnel m the followmg dIStnCtS, subject to SIte plan reVIew' 1 Heavy commerCIal zone (C-2), 2. Industnal! warehouse dIStnCt (I/W), 3 Industnal dJ.stnct (1), 4 Open space/institutional dIStnCt. E. As temporary or emergency use m. 1 Any distnct as part of a constructIon project for office use of construction personnel or temporary lIvmg quarters for secunty personnel for a penod extendmg not more than nmety days beyond completIOn of construction. A tlurty day extenSIOn may be granted by the CIty manager upon wntten request of the developer and upon the manager's finding that such request for extensIOn IS reasonable and m the publIc mterest; 2. Any dIStnct as an emergency faCIlIty when operated by or for a publIc agency; o 17 63 - 2 c c c 3 In the open space/instItutIOnal distnct where a communIty need IS demonstrated by a pubhc agency such as temporary classrooms or for security personnel on school grounds. 17.63.050 Mobile homes--Development guidelines. A. The followmg sectIOns of Chapter 296-150B, Waslungton AdmmistratIve Code (WAC), as now or hereafter amended, are mcorporated by reference herem. 200 (General mstallatIon requrrements), 210 (InspectIons), 225 (Building SIte preparatIon), 230 (FoundatIOn system footings), 235 (Foundation system pIers), 240 (FoundatIon system plates and slums), 245 (FoundatIOn facia), 250 (Anchonng systems) and 255 (Assembly) B Mobile home porches shall have the followmg lllilllmum dImensIOns front, four feet by eIght feet; rear, three feet by four feet C Mobile home WIdth shall be no less than a mmImum of twenty-four feet. D The age of a mobile home, as reflected on the tItle, shall not exceed a maXlIDum of five years at the tIme of mstallatIon. E. Mobile Home parks shall be exempt from requrrements for permanent foundations. 17.63.055 Mobile home subdivision--Review. All mobile home subchvIsIons shall be reVIewed and approved according to the prOVISIOns of Title 16 of the Yelm MumcIpal Code. 17.63.060 Mobile home subdivision design standards-Site area. Mobile home subchvIsIons shall comply With the same nurumum performance and deSIgn standards of conventional housmg m the zorung distncts m which they are penrutted. However, mobile homes shall not be constructed or used as duplexes. The mmimum SIte for mobile home subdIVISIons shall be five acres. The maXlIDum SIte for mobile home subchvIsIOns shall be twenty acres. 17.63.070 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Lot requirements. The SIze and shape of lots shall be as follows, proVIded they adhere to the densIty reqwrements. A. In low-densIty dIStnCts (R-4) I Mirumum lot area. five thousand square feet; 2. Mirumum lot Width. fifty feet; 3 MinImum front yard. On nunor streets, twenty-five feet, On major streets, thIrty-five feet, On flankmg streets, fifteen feet; 4 Mirumum SIde yards Mimmum on one SIde, five feet, Mimmum total both SIdes, twelve feet; 5 Minunum rear yard. twenty-five feet; 6 MaXlIDum buildmg coverage' tlurty percent; B In moderate-densIty dIstncts (R-6) I Mimmum lot area, five thousand square feet, 2 M,immum lot width, fifty feet, 3 Minimum front yard. On nunor streets, twenty-five feet, 17 63 - 3 On major streets, thIrty-five feet, On flankIng streets, fifteen feet; 4 Mimmum sIde yards. Mimmum on one sIde, eIght feet, MinImum total both sIdes, SIxteen feet, 5 Mimmum rear yard. twenty-five feet; 6 Maxlll1um buildmg coverage' forty percent; 17.63.080 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Off-street parking. Off-street parkmg shall be provIded m accordance With Chapter 17 72 of tlus title. 17.63.090 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Open space. Open space dedIcatiOns or fees-m-heu thereof, shall be provIded accordmg to Chapter 14 12. 17.63.100 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Accessory buildings. Accessory buildmgs on mdiVlduallots shall comply With the regulanons for such buildmgs as provIded m the zorung distnct m wluch the subdivIs.Ion IS located. 17.63.105 Mobile home park site plan review. Mobile home parks shall be reVIewed and approved as SIte plans accordmg to Chapter 17 84 17.63.110 Mobile home park design standards-Area and density. The nummum SIte for a mobile home park shall be three acres. The maxnnum SIte for a mobile home park shall be fifteen acres. The maXlmum number of mobile homes per acre shall be SIX 17.63.120 Mobile home park design standards--Site requirements. The SIze and shape of mdlVldual mobile home sites m mobile home parks shall be m accordance With the followmg: A. Mimmum space area. four thousand square feet; B MinImum Width. forty feet; C Mimmum depth. eIghty feet; D Mimmum setback from street or access road. twenty feet; E. Maxunum development coverage of space' fifty percent; F Not less than fifteen feet of space shall be mamtamed between mobile home urnts or any part thereof, nor shall any mobile home urnt be closer than fifteen feet from any other buildmg m the park, or from the extenor property lme boundmg the park. 17.63.130 Mobile home park design standards--Off-street parking. Off-street parkmg shall be prOVIded m accordance With Chapter 17 72 of tlus title. 17.63.140 Mobile home park design standards--Open space. Open space dedIcatIons or fees-m-heu thereof shall be prOVIded accordmg to Chapter 14 12 17.63.150 Mobile home park design standards--Accessory buildings and structures. A. Buildmgs or structures accessory to mdivIdual mobile homes are penrutted, mcludmg enclosed carports, prOVIded that the total development coverage of the space shall not exceed the development coverage penrutted m SectIOn 17 63 120 B Buildings or structures accessory to the mobile home park as a whole, and mtended for the use of all mobile home occupants are penmtted, proVIded the building area not exceed one-fourth of the common open space 0 area. 17.63.160 Mobile home park design standards--Landscaping and screening. 17 63 - 4 o o c c\ c To comply wIth specIfic landscapmg reqUirement m Chapter 1780 Refuse. I Refuse contaIner screenmg shall be reqUIred and be of a matenal and desIgn compatible With the overall arclutectural theme of the asSOCiated structure, shall be at least as lugh as the refuse contamer, and shall m no case be less than SIX feet lugh. 2. No refuse contamer shall be permItted between a street and the front of a buildmg. 3 Refuse collectJ.on areas shall be desIgned to contam all refuse generated on sIte and deposIted between collectIOns. DepOSIted refuse shall not be vIsible from outsIde the refuse enclosure. 17.63.170 Mobile home park design standards--Ingress and egress. A. B A. Each mobile home sIte shall have access from an mtenor drIve or roadway only B Access to the mobile home park shall be lmuted to not more than one drIveway from a publIc street or road for each two hundred feet of frontage. 17.63.180 Mobile home park design standards--Interior street dimensions. A. No mobile home park shall be constructed to block connectmg streets shown or proposed as part of the Yelm comprehensIve plan. B All mtenor pnvate streets of the park shall have dl1llenslOns not less than. I 30 feet, as per Development GUIdelmes, Section 4B 070; 2. Street With parkIng penmtted, seven feet addItional for each SIde on wluch parkIng IS penmtted. C Mobile home parks shall connect With traffic and pedestrian ways on all abuttmg or connectmg streets. 17.63.190 Mobile home park design standards--Surfacing requirements. All streets, roads and drIveways shall be desIgned and constructed consIstent With the Yelm Development GUIdelmes. 17.63.200 Mobile home park design standards--Stormwater runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retamed, treated and dIsposed of on sIte or dISpOSed of m a system desIgned for such runoff and wluch does not flood or damage adjacent propertIes. Systems desIgned for runoff retention and control shall comply With specIfications proVIded by the CIty and shall be subject to Its reVIew and approval, and shall, moreover, comply With Chapter 5 of the Yelm Development Regulations, Dramage DesIgn and ErosIOn Control Standards for the CIty of Yelm. 17 63 - 5 c c c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,19984'00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - September 21 and October 19 minutes enclosed 2 Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public hearings have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Public Hearing Applicant: City of Yelm Proposal Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the Capital Facilities Plan Location City wide Staff report enclosed 4 Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Applicant: Margo and William Cowles Proposal Annexation of 3 parcels representing approximately 13 acres located on the southwest corner of the Canal Road and Rhoton Road Intersection Staff report enclosed 5 Zoning Code Amendments Worksession Worksession on Chapter 17 63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes Staff report enclosed 6 Other' 7 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, DECEMBER 21,1998,4:00 PM o o o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 4 05 P m by Joe Huddleston Members present: Margaret Clapp, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Roberta longmire-arrived @ 4 10, John Thomson-arrived @ 4:25. Guests. Erling Birkland, Rod Hash, Bev & Mike Malan Staff: Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: Glenn Blando, E J Curry, Tom Gorman, Ray Kent. Public Communications' There were none Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation- Applicant-Margo & William Cowles, Proposal-Annexation of 3 parcels representing approximately 13 acres located on the southwest corner of the Canal Road and Rhoton Road Intersection Cathie stated that this is not a public hearing, a formal motion is not needed Cathie then gave the staff report. At this point there still was not a quorum Bob Isom asked what legally can the PC decide on if there is not a quorum? Dana Spivey stated that the PC members present can vote by consensus Marqaret Clapp stated that she supports the Cowles' notice of intent to commence annexation Roberta Lonqmire also stated that the proposed annexation is contiguous to the rest of the city limits Joe Huddleston asked for a show of hands from PC members who else was in favor? All PC members present (4) voted by consensus to forward a recommendation to City Council this notice of intent to commence annexation Zonina Code Amendments: Work session- on Chapter 17 63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes - continued Marqaret stated that the matrix that Cathie had prepared regarding the issues at hand, was very helpful Cathie then went on to explain the matrix. There was discussion Marqaret stated that she likes the idea of having a large buffer area around a mobile home park/community - and then let the owners of the park/community regulate what goes on inside Roberta agreed Discussion continued Cathie stated that she along with other city staff are asking the PC to allow them to make "administrative approval" or Yelm Planning Commission November 16 1998 Page 1 c c o "good judgement" decisions on existing parks only and on a case by case basis There was some discussion The PC members present agreed that the staff should be allowed to make administrative decisions Cathie then stated that a discussion on the remaining issues will have to be continued at the next meeting (sidewalks, parking and street widths) 98-11 Approval of Minutes: Joe Huddleston stated that he was not at the October 19, 1998 meeting - so the minutes need to be changed accordingly MOTION BY BOB 150M, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 1998 WITH THE CORRECTION, AND THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearinf/: Comp Plan Amendment updatinf/ the Cap!. Fac. Plan- Joe Huddleston opened the public hearing at 5 20 pm, and asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Joe asked if any member of the PC had received any information prior to the hearing? None Joe called for the staff report. Shellv Badqer gave a summary and recommended that the PC approve the proposed CFP amendment and forward it to the City Council for review and adoption There was little discussion 98-12 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY BOB 150M TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CFP AMENDMENT AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION MOTION CARRIED. Other - Cathie asked the PC members present about the next scheduled meeting, Monday December 21, 1998 - who will be here? After some discussion, it was agreed upon to go ahead with the meeting, but Cathie asked the PC to call her and let her know if they will not be able to attend the December meeting - so that staff has enough time to put a meeting cancellation notice in the paper if necessary Meeting adjourned at 5 30 P m Respectfully submitted, ~~J~ Dana Spivey v:::J Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission November 16, 1998 Page 2 o c c VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING: YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 16,1998 TIME 4 00 PM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s): 3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATING THE CFP NAMF If. AnnRF5;5; C- -;e c ZAXJ- g ..c.7::k c:.;qA/ ,.) MAIIIN(; I I5;T? I5;PFAKFR? /9/Z'l /2& I.? --9Ye- ~c,s- YC-:-7!~ t' I ( c c 1(\ ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF YELM DATE: Monday, November 16, 1998, at 4:00 p.m., and Wednesday, December 9, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing on the annual update to the Capital Facilities Plan. PLACE: PURPOSE' APPLICANT: CIty of Yelm The Yelm City Planning Commission and Yelm City Council will hold public hearings to receive comments on the annual update to the Capital Facilities Plan. The Planning Commission hearing will be held on Monday, November 16, 1998 at 4:00 pm. The City Council hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 9,1998, at 7:30 pm. All interested parties are invited to attend or send comments to: Yelm Planning Commission and/or Yelm City Council, PO Box 479, Yelm W A 98597. Written comments must be received prior to the hearings to be considered. AddItional information may be obtamed by contacting Cathie Carlson, CIty Planner, at Yelm CIty Hall, (360) 458-8408 The City ofYelm provIdes reasonable accommodations to persons wIth dIsabilIties. If you need special accommodations to attend or partIcIpate, call the CIty Clerk, Agnes BennIck, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meeting. ATTEST CIty of Yelm I') \,t/)f) (./tJ/1u4 Y\.!1/t, J/Ai,U L Agnes BennIck, CIty Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published m the Nisqually Valley News Thursday, October 29, 1998 Posted in Public Areas Wednesday, October 28, 1998 MaIled to Adjacent Property Owners N/ A o c c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date' November 9, 1998 To Yelm Planmng CommIssIOn From. CathIe Carlson, CIty Planner Re CapItal FaCIhtIes Plan Update A. Public Hearim! Objective. After consIderation of the facts and pubhc testimony the Planmng COlTIlTIlSSIOn must take one of the followmg actIOns. Request addItional mformatIon from CIty Staff, Contmue the Pubhc Heanng, or Make a recommendatIOn of actIOn to the CIty CouncIl. B. Proposal. Update of the ComprehensIve Plan CapItal FacIlIties Plan " The 1995 ComprehensIve Plan adopts a 20 year CapItal FacIhtIes Plan (CFP) for Parks, Pubhc FacIlIties, TransportatIOn, Sewer and Water The CFP IS a bluepnnt for future facIhtIes and probable fundmg sources. As we enter into 1999, some of the projects hsted on the CFP have been completed and some are underway Therefore, the CFP should be updated to reflect those changes and to reassess the need for future projects and theIr tImmg. The attached FmancIal Summary replaces m whole Chapter X, CapItal FacIhtIes Plan ofthe Yelm ComprehensIve Plan. Shelly Badger WIll present the mformatIOn on changes to the Parks and Sewer elements and Ken Garmann WIll present the mformation regardmg changes to the Water, Transportation and FacihtIes elements. C. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Plannmg CommISSIOn approve the proposed CFP and forward It to the CIty CouncIl for reVIew and adoptIOn. PROPOSED YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Parks, 0 en Space, Recreation $575,00000 $1,827,00000 Public Facilities $585,000 00 $800,000 00 Utilities (Sewer) $13,100,00000 $13,650,00000 $4,714,00000 Transportation $10,867,00000 Fundin!!: note. Yelm is a city ofless than 3,000, planmng for a population of 12,000 or more. The creation of new facilities in response to growth will directly depend on the ability of new growth to pay for needed new facilities. The CIty will not permit development in urban areas without all necessary services and will not permit any development which materially interferes with the City's ability to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan, either physically or fiscally The City has authorIzed enabling tools such as LIDs, latecomer agreements, impact assessments, and other charges to assure that growth pays for growth. All of the facilities needed for planned growth are either already in place, in planning, or available in increments as growth occurs. If growth does not occur as expected, additional facilities would not be expected. If proposed new growth cannot meet the minimum cost of developing within the City without local subsidy, it will not occur The City is dependent on sewer, water, and transportation grants for a portion of planning, engineering, and development costs. Key' A = 1996-2001 B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 PARKS OPEN SPACE RECREATION Yelm City Park - Improvements (8 acres) $60,00000 $220,00000 2 Cochrane Park - Master Plan (5 acres) $90,000 00 $40,000 00 3 Canal Road Park - Ballfields, active recreation (5 acres) $200,000 00 $692,000 00 4 Indoor Recreation Facility $200,000 00 $750,00000 5 SOURCE OF FUNDS IAC Grants 15% = $ 600,000 City Funds 39% = $1,500,000 Development Fee-in-Lieu / 46% = $1,784,000 Private Participation Total = $3,884,000 Fundinl! note: Lack of grant funds would slow development progress, but would not eliminate the City's overall ability to meet its objectives. 1 Improvements include (A) PA System, playground equip. ADA work; (B) purchase 2 lots adjacent to park, new kitchen bldg. seating at state area, BBQ pits, benches, tables. 2. The majority of Cochrane Park development is shown in the utilities section under sewer/water reuse. (A) Restroom facility, playground equip. (B) Covered kitchen, BBQ pits, benches, tables. 3 (A) Phase 1 per Master Plan - earthwork & grading; (B) Phases 2 & 3 per Master Plan - Utihties, development of parking lot, 2 little league fields, soccer field; (C) Phases 4 & 5 - Restroom facility bleachers, 3rd httle league field, trails, util ities. 4 Proposed public/private development of an indoor/outdoor recreation facility to include weight room, racquetball, volleyball, basketball, pool, spa, running paths, etc. (A) Planning & land acquisition, (B) Phase I construction; (C) Complete facility Key: A = 1996-2001 B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 PUBLIC FACILITIES Public Administration Public Safe Public Works, Shop, Yard (includes site work, fencing) ~, $585,00000 2 Public Safety Building (Municipal Court, Police) $650,000 00 3 SOURCE OF FUNDS - Phase A B, C Proiects Fundinl! note: The public facilities needs expressed are a function of the rate of growth. General Funds Bonds Total $ 150,000 $1,235,000 $1,385,000 1 & 2) 7 5 acres purchased by City for public works yard and other public facilities possibly to include public safety building. 3) This category includes financing for city hall and police department building (Mosman & 3rd) remodel/additions as needed for public services. Key: A = 1996-2001 B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 TRANSPORTATION N\). Projects JGW: ^ B ~ Total I Y -1, SR 510, SR 507 Connector State / Federal $800,000 00 $5,900,00000 $6,700,000.00 Y-2, SR 507, Five-Comers Connector (Yelm TIP #6-2% State / Federal / 2 oftotal project) Local $ I ,000,000.00 $2,900,000 00 $6,100,00000 $10,000,000.00 Y-3 Canal Road North Loop (potential State State / Federal / 3 Hwy)(Yelm TIP #5) Local $],860,00000 $4,340,00000 $6,200,000,00 Y-4 Coates-Stevens, ]03rd Connector (Yelm TIP #2, #9 4 - 50% of total project) State TIB / Local $] ,200,000 00 $1,200,000,00 Y-5, Yelm Avenue (SR 507/5 ]0) Improvements (Yelm State / DOT / TIB / *5 TIP #10) Local / TFC / Fed $3,300,000.00 $3,300,000.00 6 Y - 7, Southwest Access Killian Road Impact Mitigation $300,00000 $],100,000.00 $1,400,000.00 Y-8, City Center Connections (Yelm TIP - 50% of total 7 project) State TIB / Loca] $400,00000 $400,000.00 $8oo,OOO.OC 8 Y-9, Bald Hills Road Realignment State / Local $800,000 00 $800,000.OC 9 Y- 10, Vancil Road Connection Local $],300,00000 $1,300;000.00 ]0 Y -I ], I ] Oth Avenue SE Creek Crossing Local $750,00000 $750,000:00 *11 TIP #6, Edwards Street Improvements State TIB / Local $502,00000 $502,000.00 ]2 TIP #7, Rhoton Road Improvements State TlB / Local $390,000.00 $390,000.00 13 TIP #8, Railroad Street (N.P Road) Improvements State TIB / Local $290,000.00 $290.000.00 14 TIP #10, Mosman Street Improvements State TIS / Local $140,00000 $140,000.00 15 TIP # II, Second Street Improvements State TIS / Local $135,00000 $135,000.00 ]6 TIP #]2, Railroad Street Improvements State TIB / Local $]60,00000 $160,000.00 ]7 TIP #13, City-Wide Roadway Resurfacing Local/Fed / TIB $300,000.00 $300,000 00 $300,000 00 $900,000.00 Local/State / **]8 Railroad "Prairie Line" Federal/Private $650,000.00 $400,000 00 $400,000.00 $1 ,450,OOO.0~ ~tate ( I Its ( Local ( 19 Mill Road Private $400,000 00 $400.000.00 $800,000.0011 Total $10,867,000.00 $1 00,000.00 $37,217,000.0011 o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 See "Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Thurston County 1999-2004" Fundin!! note: The interim State Highway System through town, SR 510 and SR 507, presently operate below acceptable levels of service. The City has identified a "F" level of service as acceptable in the urban core until necessary improvements are made, and particularly Y-2 and Y-3 completed. These two improvements are key to achieving the overall long-term traffic LOS. Yelm is dependent upon state and regional funding to meet existing needs, particularly on the state highways. The need for extended local facilities is a function of growth and is to be paid as new growth occurs. Y -3 has been identified as an alternative to alleviate the traffic on the state hIghway through town. The projected funding sources and priorIties are Identified in the Transportation Plan as updated semi-annually through the Regional Transportation Improvements Program for Thurston County * TFC = Transportation Facility Charge - $750 00 fee for new traffic trips to the City's road system based on p.m. peak trips. Funds to be used on transportation projects identified in the TFC Plan. * Edwards Street Improvement Project to be constructed summer of 1999 utilIzing State TIB Funds, Local and Private Funds. *East Y elm Avenue 4th Street to Five Comers Project to be constructed summer of 1999 utilizing Federal, State, Local and Private Funds. ** The City ofYelm is In the process of acquiring the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview (approximately 14 miles) from the BurlIngton Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Key: A = 1996-200t B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 UTILITIES - Sewer/Water Reuse Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility (1 MGD) $8,075,027 00 2 Sludge Treatment & Disposal $800,000 00 3 Reclaimed Water Distribution Lines ~~ $874,97300 $350,000 00 4 Reclaimed Water Constructed Wetlands ~Q $650,000 00 $400,000 00 5 Reclaimed Water Storage Tank $500,000 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS Bonds Grants Locally financed LID Rates/Hook-up fees Line extensions TOTAL A&R Phase A projects $ 3,857,000 $3,743,000 $2,000,000 Phase B projects Funding note: Yelm is an approved pilot project for reuse and recycling. The City does not have the ability to complete facilities without grant funds or developer contributions. If growth occurs more slowly than planned, facilities may be spaced over longer periods or funded in small increments. $3,500,000 $13,100,000 $2,050,000 $2,664,000 $4,714,000 1 (A) Completion of the reclaimed water treatment facility mid 1999; (C) Planned 1 MGD expansion of plant contingent upon growth. 2. (B) Necessary if LOTT (or other) facility is not available. 3 (A) Completion of distribution lines complete mid 1999; (B & C) Contingent upon development & demand for reclaimed water Key- A = 1996-2001 B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 4 (A) Constructed wetlands at Cochrane Park; (B) Constructed wetlands at Yelm High School. o o o YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996-2015 We ea Protection Pan *Corrosion Control Treatment & Disinfection Upgrade 1998-99 CDBG Grant *Water Rate Analysis *Water Tower Painting & Rehabilitation *New Wells - 3,000 gpm - potable 1998 CDBG Grant *New Wells - 1,500 gpm - imgatlOn 2 *250,000 gallon Storage Reservoir *Phase I Distribution Improvements 1998 CDBG Grant 3 * Asbestos Pipe Rehabilitation Project B 1 , 00 ; 300,000 00 300,000.00 10,000 00 1-0,000:00 200,000 00 200,000.00 300,000 00 300,000.00 600,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.OQ 450,000 00 450,OQO:00 200,10000 378,00000 578,100.00 430,000 00 800,000 00 1,2~0;000.00 2,543,00000 2,543,000.00 30,000 00 .30,OOO.OQ 450,000 00 450,000.00 10,000 00 10,000:00 700,00000 700,00 . 30,000 00 30,000:00 10,000 00 10,000.00 30,000 00 30,000:00 ,00 4 *Phase II Distribution Improvements *Comprehensive Water Plan Update 5 *250,000 gallon Storage Reservoir *Water Rate Analysis 6 *New Wells - 3,000 gpm - potable 7 *Comprehensive Water Plan Update 8 *Water Rate Analysis 9 *Comprehensive Water Plan Update . Water. Subtotal SOURCE OF FUNDS Revenue Bonds @ 10% Grants @ 15% Developer Extensions @ 40% LIDS @ 35% Total $ 738,110 $1,107,165 $2,952,440 $2.583.385 $7,381,100 Fundin!! note: Yelm has the ability to fund the needed improvements for core facilities. Phase II improvements are needed to serve major developments and sponsors are discussing potential techniques for developer extensions. Key' A = 1996-2001 B= 2002-2007 C= 2008-2015 * Projects to be completed 1998-1999 with CDBG Grant Funds and c.I.P Water Department ERU Funds. o o o EXISTING YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1995-2015 FINANCIAL SUMMARY I' Note The CapItal FacilitIes Plan applicable to the unincorporated portIon of the Yelm Urban Growth Area IS referred to in Exhibit G. >< I Program Arcas I A I B I c II 'total I .. Parks, Open Space, Recreation $ 350,000 $ 310,000 $ 200,000 $ 860,000 .. Public Facilities 1,000,000 1,800,000 1,000,000 3 80trooO , .." Transportation 8,145,000 13,500,00 12,000,000 33,645,000 Utilities (Sewer) 13,316,800 11,858,600 7,468,000 32,643,400 Utilities (Water) 5,041,100 270,000 180,000 . . . 5,491.;100 II @RANJ)1(.)T4\.L: 1995-2Q15Capit~IF~cilitiesPlal1 $27,$52,900 $27,738;609 $20,818,900 I $764395001 ., ". ..., .. ~ Funding note. Yelm is a town of less than 2,000, planning for a population of 12,000 or more The creation of new facilities in response to growth will dIrectly depend on the ability of new growth to pay for needed new facilitIes The City will not permit development in urban sewered areas without all necessary services and will not permit any development which materially interferes with the City's ability to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan, either physically or fiscally The CIty has authorized enabling tools such as LIDs, latecomer agreements, impact assessments, and other charges to assure that growth pays for growth. All of the facilIties needed for planned growth are either already In place, in planning, or available in increments as growth occurs If growth does not occur as expected, additional facilIties would not be expected If proposed new growth cannot meet the minimum cost of developing within the City without local subsidy, it will not occur The City is dependent on sewer, water, and transportation grants for a portion of planning, engineering, and development costs Years Key: A:= I-il B .-:- '7.12 C ,,;;. 13..26 o o o -;-~C;-'--'~-=-~"':'-~_..:_'-.o..__ ---'----~"."".~ ~-"=--'- '-~---~_.._~---- YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1995-2015 PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION No. Projects Funding A B C Total 1 Yelm CIty Park - Improvements (8 acres) $200,000 $ 60,000 $260,00.0 2 Cochrane Park - Master Plan (5 acres) 50,000 150,000 200,0.00. 3 Canal Road Park - Ballfields, active 50,000 50,000 recreation (5 acres) 4 New Parks - as demand develops (40 50,000 100,000 $200,000 350,000. acres) Total $3SQ,OOC) . $310;0.90 $~Oq!()qOH I.. $86g~9001 >< l\,) SOURCE OF FUNDS lAC Grants City Funds Fee-Ill-Lieu - 12 % = $100,000 35 % = $300,000 (1/4 pomt REET) 53 % = $460,000 A - $10,000/yr B - $20,000/yr C - $30,000/yr Fundmg note. The City has implemented a fee in lieu program which appears to be ahead of targets Lack of grant funds would slow development progress, but would not eliminate the City's overall ability to meet its objectives Yeats Key' A= 1-6 B == 7,12 C :; 13 -20 - IJ... o ~.", u -- -=:- YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1995-2015 PUBLIC FACILITIES (Public Administration, Public Safety, Public Services) No. Proj ects .. 1 15 acres of land, wIth serVIces 2 PublIc BUlldmgs (10,000 sq ft Admm Bldg.) 3 Public Buildmgs (MumcIpal Court, PolIce) 5,000 sq ft 4 JaIl 5 PublIc Works, Shop, Yard (5,000 sq >< ft) w 6 Site work (stormwater drainage, screemng, fencmg, etc.) Total Funding A $ 300,000 B c Total $1,000,000 $300000 :-' ...... J. 000000 , . .'.. 500,000 500000 ,. . $1,000,000 1000000 ". ..-.. .~. .. '.: 300 000 .~.. . . 300,000 700,000 700000 ,. .. $1,000,000 .$1,800,000 I ... I $...1000000 .$3800000. .,.. ...., . ....,.. ...,.... .. .. . .... .... ..... . . ........................ SOURCE OF FUNDS Funding note The public facilitIes needs expressed are a function of the rate of growth The town planned will have the asset base to support the necessary public facilities Jail space could be substantially reduced or elIminated if growth does not occur or of grant funding is not available Grants - 1,000,000 (correctional facilItIes) General Funds - 1,500,000 (lOO,OOO/year for 15 years) Bonds - 1,300,000 Yeats ke>,~ A == 1..6. B ;::. 7.. 1~ d == 13 -tQ .. n (~) () . YELM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1995-2015 ~ TRANSPORT A TION Projects . ...' ]1 C Total No. Funding A .. 1 Y-l, SR 510, SR 507 Connector State/Federal $ 800,000 $5,900,000 $6,100,OOd 2 Y-2, SR 507, Five-Corners Connector State/Federal $1,000,000 2,900,000 6,100,000 1d ,000 ,0dO (Yelm TIP #3 - 2 % of total project) 3 Y - 3, Canal Road North Loop (potential State/Federal! 600,000 5,600,000 6,2bO,000 State Hwy) Local '.'.. 4 Y-4, Coates-Stevens, 103rd Connector State TIB/Local l,200,000 1,200,000 (Yelm TIP #1, #5 - 50% of total project) 5 Y-5, Yelm Avenue (SR 507/510) State DOT 3,300,000 3300000 ,. ...., . . Improvements (Yelm TIP #2 - 25 % of total project) . 6 Y -6, Crystal Spr Road DELETE (outside UGA) 7 Y -7, Southwest Access Impact Mitigation 150,000 1,250,000 lAbd,OOQ .. 8 Y-8. City Center Connections State TIB/Local 100,000 100,000 200ddO , . -: (Yelm TIP #9 - 50% of total project) ,.. 9 Y -9, Bald Hills Road Realignment State/Local 800,000 gOO,OOO 10 Y -10, Vancil Road Connection Impact Mitigation 1,300,000 1;300jQbO 11 Y -11, 110th A venue SE Creek Crossing Impact Mitigation 750,000 1~OOOO ,.., . 12 Y-12, Nisqually Pines Second Access DELETE (outside UGA) , .. >< , K~n """ ..yl.....:.36ts..... A 13 "".7 .. tz c ";';' 13.:20 '~>'{"j.\", ~ .. - - .Y. -, .. - - - - ,- ,..\.J_ - - - - _ IlIilli!!=Io =- ~ =:t=I ~ =:=. ===- =:=" ~ IIi!!!!!l ~ f!!I!!!II!! ,_c.....~_~_j:-::-" ;;-~:"'"'~'~''''';:2];:.:1T..ff~S~~:;_~: .~ ",,,,,"t . .:;-",oor:r ' . .. 1 TRANSPORTATION :.:: I ;:: No. :Proj eets Funding A B C Total::::::.. 13 TIP #4, Yelm Ave/Bald Hills Rd Signal State/Federal 300,000 600,060 14 TIP #6, Edwards Street Improvements State TIB/Local 300,000 30p ,000 15 TIP #7, Rhoton Road Improvements State TIE/Local 390,000 .:. .3PO,OQO .::::::. ~ 16 TIP #8, Railroad Street (N P Road) State TIE/Local 290,000 290,000 Improvements : 17 TIP #10, Mosman Street Improvements State TIE/Local 140,000 140,000 18 TIP #11, Second Street Improvements State TIE/Local 135,000 135,000 19 TIP #12, Railroad Street Improvements State TIB/Local 160,000 160 000 ,. '. :: 20 TIP #13, City-Wide Roadway Resurfacing Local 80,000 SO,OQO 'I'otal $8,145,OOQ $1350000 : $l1.;OOO,OQO I $33,64$,OQO I . .. ,. .....,.. . . >< C11 See "Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Thurston County, 1995-1997" September 1994 Funding note The interim State Highway System through town, SR 510 and SR 507, presently operate below acceptable levels of service. The City has Identified an "F" level of service as acceptable in the urban core until necessary improvements are made, and particularly Y-2 and Y-3 completed These two improvements are key to achievmg the overall long-term traffic LOS. Yelm is dependent upon state and regional funding to meet existing needs, particularly on the state highways The need for extended local facilities is a function of growth and is to be paid as new growth occurs Y -3 has been identified as an alternative to alleviate the traffic on the state highway through town. The projected funding sources and pnorities are identified in the Transportation Plan as updated semi-annually through the Regional Transportation Improvements Program for Thurston County Years Key' A 1 - 6 B 7-12 C - U.~Q o o o 1-: - ~ ~. ',-.. YELM CAPITAL FACl 'TIES PLAN 1995-2015 en ,..". '" " '."". UTILITIES (Sewet),. , .,' ., " ',., H, No. Projects FUfidil1 d A )3 C Total ",,,' ",g 1 Secondary Treatment FacIlity $2,585,000 $1,300,000 $1,445,000 $5,330,000 (I MGD) (+1 MGD) Sludge 2 Advanced Treatment Facihty 1,827,000 915,000 2,742,000 (I MGD) (+1 MGD) 3 Distribution/Use FacIlities 1 ,818,000 800,000 500,000 3,118,000 4 PermIttmg 75,000 75,000 J50,000 5 DemonstratIOn Pilot FacIhtles 875,000 200,000 1,075,000 ' 6 Sales Tax 837,800 464,400 253,200 1,555,400 7 Design & City Administration 855,000 430,000 273,000 1,:)58,000 8 Construction Mgnt & City AdmmIstratlOn 944,000 475,000 301,000 1,120,000 9 Contmgency @20% 1,147,000 755,000 h902,OOO 10 Inflation Factor (4 % per year) 3,388,200 2,680,800 6.069000 '"'..,,. 11 Step Line Extension 3,500,000 2,664,000 1 ,260,000 7,424,000 .. I $32,643,400.' Sewer Subtotal $13,316,800 $11 ,858,600 $1,468,000 . . ... ..- . >< SOURCE OF FUNDS -- Phase A projects Bonds $ 1,000,000 Grants $ 4,500,000 Locally financed Plant & discharge improvements $ 4,500,000 Line extensions $ 3.500.000 $13,500,000 Funding note Yelm is an approved pilot project for reuse and recycling Grant funding has been proposed by funding agencies The City does not have the ability to complete facilities without grant funds or developer contributions If growth occurs more slowly than planned, facilities may be spaced over longer penods or funded in smaller increments See Sewer Comprehensive Plan : ' l(~Y: Years A :':,1..6 13 ~1.12,. C _ i=t. l3 ~2:()H ./ ""'\;,: .I, o o UTILITIES No. (Water) Projects I . Wellhead Protection Plan 1995 . Corrosion Control Treatment & Disinfection Upgrade . Water Rate Analysis . Water Tower Painting & Rehabilitation . New Wells - 3,000 gpm - potable . New Wells - 1,500 gpm - irrigation 2 . 250,000 gallon Storage Reservoir ) 996 . Phase I Distribution Improvements 3 . Asbestos Pipe Rehabilitation Project 1997 4 1999 5 2000 6 2004 7 . New Wells - 2000 gpm - potable 2005 >< -..J . Phase II Distribution Improvements . Comprehensive Water Plan Update . 250,000 gallon Storage Reservoir . Water Rate Analysis . Comprehensive Water Plan Update 8 . Comprehensive Water Plan Update 2006 9 . Water Rate Analysis 2010 10 2014 . New Wells - 1000 gpm - potable . Comprehensive Water Plan Update Water S\lbtobll SOURCE OF FUNDS Revenue Bonds @ 20% Grants (FmHa, CBG) @ 5% Developer Extensions @50% LIDs @35% $1,098,220 274,555 2,196,440 1.921.885 $5,491,100 o Funding : A $ 5,000 75,000 10,000 60,000 200,000 200,000 450,000 578, I 00 430,000 2,543,000 30,000 450,000 10,000 $5,041,100 Funding note: Yelm has the ability to bond the needed improvements for core facilities. Phase II improvements are needed to serve major developments and sponsors are discussing potential techniques for developer extensions. _ ___ ~=..~.:::-.;:::~~~= ..:=~"'-.:=r-=--= -~~-=-~~:::::::...-::::;:--==:::::::::----::-~- ~o '. .' . .."':"".'..'~',c.-:~t~I~:<~. ""',: .."",' ,,'::;;:::-:.. '..;. .~:,,,,,<;.,;!~,f.<ff~\<-,,~ ~,;d';:.;li':-f,~~if,;~tf~:'7'. -,.~.. .. -. . ., ,. .. .. ... . . B c Total $~,OOO 75,000 10,000 60,000 200;000 200,000 456~000 578,100 430,000 $ 30,000 2,543,000 30,000 450,000 10;000 30,000 200,000 200,000 30,000 30;000 10,000 10;000 .. $150,000 30,000 150WOO . 30;000 $.5.... ..4911....0....0.:.....'. ,.1 ,.-.. ...,""... ....,._" ." ....... . , $~1d,()OO ,... ,$180,000 I Key: I. c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date November 5, 1998 To: Yelm Planning Commission From. Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re. Notice of Intent to Annex, Case ANX-988226-YL A. Proposal. B. Findinas: Applicant: Location c Existing Land Use Zoning Zoning Upon Annexation Area Land Use Critical Areas Soils and Geology. Wastewater' Water Supply' ~ V Fire Protection Annexation of 3 parcels representing approximately 13 acres Margo and William Cowles The annexation area is located on the southwest corner of the Canal Road and Rhoton Road intersection The annexation includes Tax Parcels 22718310300, 22718310800, and 22718310200 Please refer to attached vicinity map Single family residential and vacant. Residential, one unit per five acres (Thurston County) Low Density Residential District (R-4) - four units per acre, Yelm Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17 12. Development of the site at four units per acre can not be achieved until the site is served with public utilities. Please see discussion below regarding sewer and water available Single Family, power canal and vacant land Classified as Sensitive Aquifer The southwestern portion of the area has experience flooding and the presence of wetlands is highly probable Spanaway Gravelly loam The site will be in the City's sewer service area upon completion of the Sewer Treatment Plant upgrade in early 1999 Existing sewer lines are approxirmtely 500' south of the area on Rhoton Road The site is currently is the water service area. Existing water lines are approximat~ 500 feet south of the area on Rhoton Road Thurston County Fire District #2. C Fire Protection Police Protection Thurston County Fire District #2. City of Yelm upon annexation APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential District (R-4) Yelm Municipal Code YMC, Title 2, Chapter 2 66, Annexation Procedures STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Notice of Intent to Annex and forward it to the City Council for a public hearing and consideration C c I ..( 1 bUU o SW 1/4, SEe.18, T17N, R2E, W.M. , ~ LOT 3 "', , ~~ ~ CKI.;)IML - I - 1 @-0103 SPRI NC CITY LIMITS (A . .>URVEY) mA - - @-03 - c) ; I @-0102 - ~ F:~ 00 @-0304 @-0301 CSS-80~ / J , M-0302 ~ r-i'l ~ ~ ~-0303 08 G)-01 @( ) @ @ 1 \ @l @ @J 10l'l....-- \ \.ll'l'L~1r,~ I @____ @ \. l@I@I@/~ \\ @l ~ ~ T I II ~ ~ 0 4ZN~~ \\\ @ ~ @ r- rW J @ @~ @ C\ @ ,-'-(l.y @ r-:- /~ @ @ @ ~P @ 26 \ @ b }... ~ .......... ~~ ~ -~ \\1 @ II~ ,........ ~. ~l T~ '!@ 0/t~~101Q:J00 @J-03 ~ ~ I (2), . 111'-" -.-- , ~ ~ ~ I ( ~ @-~:_2~::B ( ~~ @-0501-m: '2' Q)J-0509 '" /h...@ 0 \V ~ \.;L., I ,,-~~ I ,',4 I r- rJ- ,., -.. b - ANNEXATION AREA ~~ r-1 ,- ~ l51: ( r- o ~-Ogv ~ ~ps~oo~ Q}J-04 TR C j@-0507 TR 0 05 31-05 ~ 1.. TR E 1 ~ OF - ~ , I" L-- - .-.. ~ ~~, . ~02 o~ o~ Ql () Vi (j) Q)J-0201 (!) @-03 \ ..... 0-02 \ @-0102 Qtr01 Q)J-08 \ n C) C6J C}J G~@ @\ ~ e@o@/@ k I VJ..-l :...wl8l "';;....... ~ @J G cD @\:0 @ @ @l @ t @ @ @ @ \ r ~/nhn' ~r @ @ @ @ @ @ \~ ~ @ 1\ @ @ I:~ @ I: ~ V @ c- \ :: ~ @ \ c9 @ I @ Q) T: @ @ I @ @ GJ ~ 81$ ~ 1~5 @t6@i1UJ@ I@l ~ @ vI -' L CT SE--- e ~ JlJ! ~!J .E! ~\ @ QjJ I C&U @ I @ cP @ THtlRSffi..:-:: ~ I U]tE~ SVjEW @ ~ ~~ @ ~ I@ @ ~ ~-0102 1 @ Q:J @ @ ~ CD ~ @@@@@r9@t9~ _,.~~..~.~ ~ .. Rlle:r-e" ~T M ~ TR "6s- 0081) -: &,\@ CV Q)}-/ AA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 898~ O~jO@~ O~ ..gJ "\ J @l ~ ~ ~ @ lO' 0P r I I o NOTICE OF INTENT TO CCMv1ENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: The City Council of the City of Yelm The undersigned are owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation, of the property as described below We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Yelm that it is the desire of the undersigned property owners of that area to commence annexation proceedings: The property referred to is described on Exhibit "A": attached hereto and as shown by the attached map c It is requested that the City Council of the City of Yelm set a date not later than sixty days after receipt of this request for a meeting with the petitioners to determine: 1 Whether the City Counci 1 wi 11 permit a petition regarding this annexation to be circulated; 2 Whether the City Council will require designation of zoning upon annexation; 3 Whether the City Counci 1 wi 11 require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be fi led with the other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention 0"u{ /1f~ t?~J /Ie( c?w~s -~SIJ(jfk~;t)J1~ o forms\anx (5/92) Page / of 1. o o c WARN:I:NG EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNS THIS PETITION WITH ANY OTHER THAN HIS TRUE NAME, OR WHO KNOWINGLY SIGNS MORE THAN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS, OR SIGNS A PETITION SEEKING AN ELECTION WHEN HE IS NOT A LEGAL VOTER, OR SIGNS A PETITION WHEN HE IS OTHERWISE NOT QUALIFIED TO SrGN, OR WHO MAKES HEREIN ANY FALSE STATEMENT, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR_ Assessorls Acrage Parcel No. 22 ~I f"J /O:!rJO Assessorls Value If -</G) 20 o. (Jo 3~~~ lA&~~ Cvwc I uJru...LAIYl ~ /l11l1ilo-D ~() i3~ tEt{ I y~( Wt4rH 9Y~9 i'" ?'/t IB ~2r/~J/()~OO ..,f/,j~ 7~tJ. 00 I, ~ 2... ~ R 771 ~7e.. t... - I /<; 10 (! /<. L S'~,-e I7tler ~ sf. If). uJ. '1&"?.rrl, WIQslI. rtf/sf?, Ie v,ly e2. "i/ft'J'/o 20-0 #,,~ ()~O. tJ 6 IYlzrZ4e-t<.. /n,::{. 7k t/sr , Bfa 'Y I I ~ (p'~ /Ntr $(:;- l.3".rz.L &v-v &~ u.h9 S" fI - ) ID 1::: IF IG rO-f~ ~ vf c2. Chapter 17.63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes Development Standards (Existing and Proposed) Issue Manuf. Home Proposed Development Manuf. Home Proposed Development Designated Proposed Development Standards Communities Standards for Manuf. Home Subdivision Standards for Manuf. for Designated Manuf. Home (R-4, (Parks) Communities (Parks) Existing Manuf. Home Home (R-4, R-6 & R-14) Existing Regulations Subdivision R-6 & R-14) regulations Existing Standards Districts allowed R-6 and R-14 (3-15 No change proposed. R-4 and R-6 (5 - 20 No change proposed all residential No change proposed acres) acres) districts Street Width Private - two -15' Private - two - 11' lanes. Public - 2 - 11' No change proposed Public - 2 - 11' No change proposed (driving lanes) lanes lanes lanes Sidewalk Required to Min 4' internal walkway shall connect 5' - one side No change proposed. 5' - one side No change proposed connect with each space with common areas, pedestrian ways on internal roads, public streets and abutting or parking areas All walkways must be connecting streets separated, raised, or protected from vehicular traffic and provide access for handicapped persons. On-Street No language for Min 7' parking one side and parking 7' - each side' No change proposed 7' - each side No change proposed Parking required parking area for guests of at least one space Code requires 7' - for each five homes. Or min. 7' per side if parking parking each side. permitted Off-Street 2 paved spaces per No change proposed 2 paved spaces per No change proposed 2 paved No change proposed Parking unit unit spaces per unit Open Space 5% of gross parcel No change proposed 5% of gross parcel No change proposed. Not required No change proposed. on existing lots of record (JROUP\MANMA TRI WPD (J o o Issue Manuf. Home Proposed Development Manuf. Home Proposed Development Designated Proposed Development Standards Communities Standards for Manuf. Home Subdivision Standards for Manuf. for Designated Manuf. Home (R-4, (Parks) Communities (Parks) Existing Manuf. Home Home (R-4, R"() & R-14) Existing Regulations Subdivision R-6 & R-14) regulations Existing Standards Perimeter Buffer No requirement. Min 25' Type I buffer or 6' solid fence No requirement. Min. 20' Type I buffer or 15' No No change proposed. and 15' Type I buffer Type I buffer which may be requirement. placed on individual lots Or 6' solid fence with 10' Type I buffer Lot Coverage 50% Proposed change to 75% R-4 30%, R-6 40% Proposed change to 75%. 75% Proposed change to 75% Permanent No requirement. No change proposed Permanent Homes shall be set below grade Permanent Homes shall be set below grade on Foundations foundations on ribbon-footings and a foundations ribbon-footings and a permanent required permanent foundation shall be required foundation shall be constructed around constructed around the the perimeter Also, may want to perimeter Also, may want to consider allowing other materials such consider allowing other as pressured treated wood painted materials such as pressured concrete gray, stucco or simulated treated wood painted concrete brick/block as long as regulations are gray, stucco or simulated clear regarding pit sit and backfill. brick/block as long as regulations are clear regarding pit sit and backfill Foundation Per WAC - metal Homes shall be set below grade on Not allowed No change proposed Not allowed No change proposed Skirting . skirting allowed ribbon-footings and a foundation (as per the manufacturers's instructions) and anchored with an approved . anchoring system A perimeter fascia Pit Set/Backfill Not required shall be installed that looks similar to Not required No more than 12" of the Not required No more than 12" of the foundation shall a foundation for a site built home such foundation shall be visible or be visible or above finish grade of the lot. as pressured treated wood painted above finish grade of the lot. (See Permanent Foundations for setting concrete gray, stucco or simulated (See Permanent Foundations requirements.) brick/block. for setting requirements ) UROUP\MANMATRI WPD o o o Page 2 Issue Manuf. Home Proposed Development Manuf. Home Proposed Development Designated Proposed Development Standards Communities Standards for Manuf. Home Subdivision Standards for Manuf for Designated Manuf. Home (R-4, (Parks) Communities (Parks) Existing Manuf. Home Home (R-4, R-6 & R-14) Existing Regulations Subdivision R-6 & R-14) regulations Existing Standards Roof Pitch No requirements min. 3 12 roof pitch with eave No requirements Min.4 12 roof pitch with eave No Min. 4 12 roof pitch with eave projection projection of no less than six inches, projection of no less than six requirements of no less than six inches, which may which may include a gutter inches, which may include a include a gutter gutter Roofing Material No requirements All roofing materials shall consist of No requirements All roofing materials shall consist No All roofing materials shall consist of one one of the following categories wood, of one of the following requirements of the fallowing, categories wood, shingle, wood shake, synthetic categories wood, shingle, wood shingle, wood shake, synthetic composite shingle, or concrete tile shake, synthetic composite composite shingle, or concrete tile. shingle, or concrete tile. Exterior Siding No requirements Exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, No requirements Exterior siding of brick, wood, No Exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, plaster, concrete, or other material, stucco, plaster, concrete, or requirements plaster, concrete, or other material, which is finished in a nonglossy and other material, which is finished which is finished in a nonglossy and nonreflective manner in a nonglossy and nonreflective nonreflective manner and which is manner and which is compatible compatible with surrounding with surrounding development. development. Garages or No requirements No change proposed No requirements The manufactured home shall No The manufactured home shall have a Carports have a garage or carport requirements garage or carport constructed of like constructed of like material and material and which is compatible with which is compatible with surrounding development. . surrounding development. OOUP\MANMATRI WPD o o o Page' 3 Issue Manuf. Home Proposed Development Manuf. Home Proposed Development Designated Proposed Development Standards Communities Standards for Manuf. Home Subdivision Standards for Manuf. for Designated Manuf. Home (R-4, (Parks) Communities (Parks) Existing Manuf. Home Home (R-4, R-6 & R-14) Existing Regulations Subdivision R-6 & R-14) regulations Existing Standards Compatibility No requirements No change proposed No requirements Manufactured housing shall be No Manufactured housing shall be compared to site-built housing in requirement compared to site-built housing in the the neighborhood within the neighborhood within the same zoning same zoning district. Approval district. Approval for the manuf home for the manuf home shall not be shall not be granted unless it is found granted unless it is found that that the manuf. home is substantially the manuf home is substantially similar in size, siding, material, roof pitch, similar in size, siding, material, roof material, foundation and general roof pitch, roof material, appearance to site-built housing which foundation and general may be permitted by the zoning and/or appearance to site-built housing building code in the neighborhood in the which may be permitted by the same zoning district. zoning and/or building code in the neighborhood in the same zoning district. Setbacks Front - 20', Exterior F- 15' with minimum 20' driveway F- 15' with min 20' No change to front or side yards. F- 15' with No change proposed property line - 15', approach, Exterior property line - 10' driveway approach, Rear yard 10' from required min 20' between from required buffer, between sides - 5' & 7', rear- buffer driveway structures - 15' structures - 10' 25' approach, sides - 5' & 7', rear- 25' Width min 24' Should smaller units be allowed if in a min 24' Should smaller units be allowed min 24' Should smaller units be allowed if the . community? If yes, should smaller if the development is part of a size and style are compatible with units be limited to percentage of the Master Planned Community or existing stick built homes? total units? Planned Residential Community? If yes, should smaller units be limited to percentage of the total units? UROUP\MANMATRI WPD o o o Page 4 ~ Issue Manuf. Home Proposed Development Manuf. Home Proposed Development Designated Proposed Development Standards Communities Standards for Manuf. Home Subdivision Standards for Manuf. for Designated Manuf. Home (R-4, (Parks) Communities (Parks) Existing Manuf. Home Home (R4, R-6 & R-14) Existing Regulations Subdivision R-6 & R-14) regulations Existing Standards Existing No requirements Staff shall administratively approve No requirements Not applicable. No Not applicable. Manufactured the replacement of all units in an requirements Home existing community If necessary, Communities staff variances shall be granted to (nonconforming) achieve the highest degree of conformance with adopted development standards. OOUP\MANMATRI.WPD 0- o o Page 5 , c o o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Roberta Longmire, John Thomson. Guests. Glen Cunningham-City Council Liaison, Bev & Mike Malan. Staff: Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: E.J Curry, Ray Kent. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the September 21, 1998 meeting were not available at this time Public Communications' There were none Public Hearina. Amendments to Title 14. Environment- Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 4 02 pm Tom then asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Tom asked if any member of the Planning Commission had received any information prior to the hearing? None Tom called for the staff report. Cathie Carlson gave the staff report. Bob Isom asked Cathie if its conforming to legislation? Cathie said yes Maraaret Clapp asked if Cathie could make any argument why the city wouldn't want to do this? Cathie said no Tom closed the public hearing at 406 P m 98-10 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO SUPPORl AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVALON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14-ENVIRONMENT MOTION CARRIED Zonina Code Amendments: Work session- Chapter 17.63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes Tom asked for input from staff Cathie explained the purpose of this work session is for the Planning Commission (PC) to review and discuss information on numerous issues relating to manufactured housing. Cathie stated that at the end of the work session, the PC should be prepared to give staff direction on which areas of Chapter 17 63, Mobile/Manufactured Homes need revisions Additional work sessions may be required to fully discuss all issues Cathie also explained some procedures and a research field trip her and Dana went on in early October Cathie explained the "Definition" section, then showed a series of slides throughout the rest of the staff report. The slides showed different examples of some of the issues at hand (i e street width, roof pitch, sidewalks, parking areas, alternative foundations etc) Throughout the staff report there was much discussion Questions and discussions were as follows Under the "maximum coverage" issue - Shelly Badaer asked why the maximum density percentage and the overall percentage of development coverage shouldn't be the same? Cathie said no Shelly stated that its probably better that we are addressing these issues now rather than in the future after a large project applies Yelm Planning Commission October 19, 1998 Page 1 c o o Cathie talked in depth about the minimum street width and parking issue, stating that the code for this topic is pretty vague Shellv stated that the current code requires two on- site parking stalls, without any other parking provisions, it just isn't enough anymore when most families have two or more vehicles, and when they have guests there isn't anywhere to park. Roberta Lonamire stated if manufactured homes are going to be allowed in all zoning districts, with the same lot coverage allowance - why is something different being considered on the roads? Tom answered that he thought the same way, we are trying to provide a different housing opportunity for different income levels in the community - but from a public safety, ingress & egress and quality of life standpoint - they should have the same rights, if they have the same rights they should have the same responsibilities as the stick build homes Mike Malan addressed the PC, and commented that the difference between parks/communities and sub-divisions is the type of people who live in each Mr. Malan went on to say that generally you won't find too many families in a mobile home park/community - its mostly retired people, who don't have as many vehicles going in and out, children etc Also, in a park/community where the homes can be moved, if there are sidewalks and curbs there will be a lot of damage when a home is moved in and out, it would not be very cost effective for the park/community owner Roberta commented that maybe there should be different standards for "retirement communities" Bev Malan stated that when she first opened her mobile hom0 park - they tried to have a "Senior only" park, but it was too hard to fill the spaces There was more discussion about private streets Cathie drew an example on the board. Shellv stated that on private streets the fire & safety issues can still be addressed Maraaret asked if a one-way street could be used, with parking on one side? Cathie said yes, then went on to discuss open space and perimeter buffer requirements and development standards for designated manufactured housing Cathie showed the slides which referenced some alternative foundations, roofing materials and roof pitch, exterior siding and garage/carports Bev Malan asked if mixe9 developments were allowed Cathie said yes Cathie stated that another work session will probably be necessary Tom Gorman asked Cathie if she would develop a matrix with all the issues and then list the requirements in each category (i e existing sub-divisions, townhouses, manufactured housing communities and sub-divisions) to help everyone understand all the different types etc. Meeting adjourned at 5 35 P m Respectfully submitted, J ~ ~ .~ ana Spivey ,'0 Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission October 19, 1998 Page 2 n c o " City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date: October 7, 1998 To Yelm Planning Commission From Gibran Hashmi, Assistant City Planner Re Public Hearing regarding Amendments to Chapter 14, Environment, of the Yelm Municipal Code LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I - Exhibit II - Public Notice SEPA Rule Changes, Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant March 1998 A. Public Hearina Obiective: After consideration of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions, -Request additional information from City Staff -Continue the public hearing -Make a recommendation of action to the City Council B. Proposal. An amendment to Title 14, Environment, Section 14040010 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) to include, by reference, new sections of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11 (SEPA Rules) as follows, WAC 197-11-158 WAC 197-11-172 WAC 197-11-164 WAC 197-11-238 WAC 197-11-168 WAC 197-11-355 C. Summary of New WAC Sections: WAC 197-11-158 Growth Management Act (GMA) project review--Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations. Describes how a GMA county/city may rely on existing environmental analysis and mitigation for a proposal (from RCW 43 21 C 240) and discusses the concept of GMA county/city being able to designate impacts as acceptable WAC 197-11-164 Planned actions--Definition and criteria. Defines "Planned Actions" using the criteria in RCW 43.21C 031 Planned actions are projects meeting one or more types of criteria as given in WAC 197-11-164 A planned action is similar to master plan, except for a master plan is typically a private project and a planned acition is typically a public project. WAC 197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned actions-- Procedures for adoption. Adds procedures for a GMA county/city to adopt a planned action " Planned actions must be designated by ordinance or resolution Public notice and 0 public comment period shall be provided as part of the agency's process for adopting the ordinance or resolution The ordinance or resolutions shall describe the type of action designated as a planned action, include findings that impacts of the planned action have been identified and addressed in the EIS, identifies specific mitigation measures other than pplicable development regulations that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as the planned action If the GMA county/city has not limited the planned action to a specific time frame it may do so in the ordinance or resolution designating the planned action GMA county/city is encouraged to provide a periodic review and or update procedure for the planned action to monitor implementation and consider changes as warranted WAC 197-11-172 Planned actions--Project review. Defines the project review process for projects proposed as planned actions Project review for planned actions is intended to be simpler & more focused than for other projects WAC 197-11-238 Monitoring. Encourages an appropriate level of environmental information at each stage in the GMA planning process. GMA counties/cities are encouraged to establish monitoring for the cumulative impacts of permit decisions & conditions, & to use this data to update the information regarding 0 existing conditions for the built & natural environment. WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. Creates an optional process allowing a GMA county/city to use the notice of application comment period to also receive comments on environmental impacts, and then to issue a Determination of Nonsignficance (DNS) without an additional comment period The optional DNS process allows a GMA city/county to use an integrated comment period to obtain comments on a notice of application for a project permit and on the likely DNS for the proposal Usually a second comment period would not be required when the DNS is then issued This optional process can be used when the city or county is reasonably certain that the project will have no significant impacts or that mitigation will reduce impacts to a nonsignificant level D. Findinas' 1 Proponent: City of Yelm 2 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News on October 8, 1998, and posted in public areas on October 7, 1998 E. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends amending Section 14040010, to reference the new WAC SEPA rule changes o J ~ITY OF YELM EXHIBIT I PUBLIC NOTICE ENVIRONMENT CODE AMENDMENT () NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: PURPOSE: Monday, October 19, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Y elm Ave. W., Yelm, W A Public Hearing to receive comments on amendments to Chapter 14, Environment, of the Yelm Municipal Code. APPLICANT: City ofYelm The Yelm Planning CommiSSIOn wIll hold a pubhc hearing regarding amendments to Chapter 14, Environment, of the Yelm Mumcipal Code, for the adoptIOn of new sectIOns of the Washmgton AdministratIve Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11 (State Environmental Policy Act Rules) Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the amendments received by the close of the public hearing on October 19, 1998. Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. () Any related documents are available for public review dunng normal busmess hours at the CIty ofYelm, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm, WA. For addItIonal mformatIon please contact Gibran Hashmi at 458-8430 The CIty ofYelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with dIsabilities. If you need special accommodatIOns to attend or partICIpate, call the CIty Clerk, Agnes BennIck, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meeting. A TrEST City ofYelm 4/lth N~L Agnes Bennick, City Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News. Thursday, October 8, 1998 Posted in Public Areas: Wednesday, October 7, 1998 Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners: nla () Page 1 of 1 I Date: October 19,1998 CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT II SEPA Rule Changes, Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant, March ~998 ~ ENVIRONMENT CODE AMENDMENT . Comments Helll Home Site Index Site Search What's HEm MRSC , Municipa/Research & Services Center A Resource for Washi~ton LtxafGOIemmelts C) SEP A Rule Changes Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant March 1998 The Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted, effective November 10, 1997, revisions to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules, chapter 197-11 WAC. DOE made these revisions, the most extensive to the SEPA rules since their adoption in 1984, primarily in response to 1995 regulatory reform legislation (ESHB 1724) and 1997 legislation (ESB 6094) that enacted Land Use Study Commission recommendations concerning the Growth Management Act. The revisions add new rules and amend existing ones, and are summarized below What do the SEP A rule revisions mean for cities and counties? All cities and counties should have in place local SEP A rules to guide their review of actions affecting the environment. Under SEPA, local governments have 180 days to amend their local SEPA rules to be consistent with DOE rule revisions. The deadline for local governments to amend their local SEPA rules in response to the DOE rule revisions is May 9, 1998. What SEP A rules do cities and counties follow until they amend their local SEP A rules? Under SEPA, existing local rules continue to be effective until the adoption of new, amended rules, provided that those new rules are adopted within the 180-day period. However, some commentators have suggested that local governments cannot follow an existing local rule that directly contradicts the new DOE rules. Regardless of when local rules are amended, local governments must comply with the 1995 and 1997 legislation that the new DOE rules are intended to implement. For example, cities and counties already must comply with the limitation of holding no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal for project permit applications, a limitation that DOE incorporates into its rule revisions for applications that are subject to SEPA. () What happens if cities and counties do not amend their SEP A rules within the lSO-day period? There are no specific statutory penalties for non-compliance with the 180-day deadline. However, a local government's SEP A review of a proposed land use action can be challenged on the basis of that review being inconsistent with SEP A and the DOE rules. In short, a city or county's land use decisions that are subject to SEP A may be in legal jeopardy because of a failure to timely amend local SEP A rules. How have the SEP A rules been changed by the recent revisions? The revised DOE rules address four main areas: (I) combining the requirements for project permit application review and SEPA review into one integrated review process; (2) administrative SEP A appeals; (3) "planned actions," designated as such by cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA); and (4) categorical SEPA exemptions. Integrated Review Chapter 36.70B RCW, relating to local project permit review, was enacted in 1995 and requires cities and counties to integrate their project permit and SEP A review processes, including administrative appeals. Ai; part of this integrated process, GMA cities and counties may decide when making a threshold determination that some or all of the specific environmental impacts of a proposed project and their mitigation have been adequately analyzed by their development regulations or comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal laws or rules. The SEPA rules address this in a new rule, WAC 197-11-158. The project permit review process in chapter 36.70B RCW also addresses the integration of the threshold determination process with the project permit application requirements, including notice. See WAC 197-11-310. http://www.mrsc.orglfocuspub/sepachgs.htm 9/28/98 () Page 1 of 3 Date: October 19,1998 4" 'CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT II SEPA Rule Changes, Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant, March 1998 ENVIRONMENT CODE AMENDMENT c One problem with the notice of application process in RCW 36, 70B.II 0 is that it was amended twice by the 1997 legislature, and each amendment is different and does not refer to the other DOE has decided to await legislative action to resolve the conflict. However, in the meantime, the revised SEP A rules contain a new optional determination of nonsignificance (DNS) process. The optional DNS process allows a GMA city or county to use an integrated comment period to obtain comments on a notice of application for a project permit and on the likely DNS for the proposal. Usually a second comment period would not be required when the DNS is then issued. This optional process can be used when the city or county is reasonably certain that the project will have no significant impacts or that mitigation will reduce impacts to a nonsignificant level. This optional process is set out in WAC 197-11-355 2. Administrative Appeals. The revised SEP A rules address the optional administrative appeal process in WAC 197-11-680 relating to a local government's SEP A review decision. The revisions incorporate the chapter 36.70B RCW limitation of having no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal for permit decisions. They also provide, with some exceptions, for consolidation of any allowed appeals of SEP A determinations with a hearing or appeal on the underlying action. Time limits for administrative appeals are also addressed in the revised rules. Note: Due to an error, the version ofW AC 197-11-680(Appeals) in WSR 97-21-030, is incorrect. The correct version of WAC 197-11-680 is found in an emergency rule at WSR 97-23-013 3 Planned Actions. Under 1995 legislation, GMA cities and counties can by ordinance or resolution designate "planned actions." "Planned actions" are defmed as having significant impacts already addressed in an EIS prepared in conjunction with a GMA comprehensive or subarea plan or with a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development, or aphased project. Planned actions must be located within an urban growth area, may not be considered "essential public facilities," and must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of this earlier SEPA review, a threshold determination or an EIS is not required for a proposed project that qualifies as a planned action, although an environmental checklist still must be submitted. c For planned actions, a city or county reviews the proposed project and verifies that it is consistent with the planned action designated by ordinance or resolution and that the environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. The city or county then continues with project permit review New SEPA rules in WAC 197-11-164 through 197-11-172 provide details on how the planned action process is implemented. 4 Categorical Exemptions. Although DOE is currently engaged in preparing proposed revisions to the list of categorical SEPA exemptions in WAC 197-11-800, it made a few additions to the exemptions in its revised SEPA rules that were effective last November Two of these exemptions are of particular significance for cities and counties, although they do nothing more than incorporate prior statutory changes. One is the 1994 statutory exemption for city annexations. The other exemption is for certain "personal wireless service facilities," which mirrors the provisions ofRCW 43.2IC.0384, enacted in 1996. What help does DOE provide in revising local SEP A rules? DOE's Web site provides "interim guidance" on its revised rules. This interim guidance, found at http://www wa.gov/ecology/cp/guidncn4.html provides a brief discussion of the primary changes in the rules and the background for those changes. DOE is currently in the process of revising its SEP A Handbook to incorporate and provide detailed discussion and guidance on the rule changes. The revised handbook will, according to DOE, be available in "early 1998." o DOE's Web site also provides a draft revision to the Model SEPA Ordinance, updated" as of March 9, 1997, at http://wwwwa.gov/ecology/cp/modelord.htmI.Pursuanttostatutorydirection.inI984 DOE adopted a "model ordinance" (chapter 173-806 WAC) that provides local SEP A regulations and procedures that cities and counties can adopt to comply with the DOE rules. Some cities and counties adopted the DOE model ordinance, with modifications, as their local SEP A rules. If your city or county has adopted the model ordinance or is thinking of doing so, you will want to pay attention to DOE's revisions. As its draft ordinance is reviewed and improved, DOE intends to post updated versions http://www.mrsc.orglfocuspub/sepachgs.htm 9/28/98 Page 2 of 3 r Date: October 19,1998 CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT II ~==== SEPA Rule Changes, Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant, March 1998 ENVIRONMENT CODE AMENDMENT on its Web site. () Where can you get a copy of the revised SEP A regulations? If you subscribe to the Washington State Register, the revised rules are at WSR 97-21-030 and WSR 97-23-013 (containing the corrected version of WAC 197-11-680). If you have Internet access, DOE has posted the revised rules at http://wwwwa.gov/ecology/cp/fmlrule.html. which include the corrected version of WAC 197-11-680 In addition, DOE mailed copies of the new rules to all city and county planning directors in December 1997 However, if your city or county does not have a copy of the new rules or does not receive the State Register or have Internet access, you can order a copy of the new SEP A rules from Neil Aaland at DOE at (306)407-7045 MRSC can help too!CAs part of its usual "clearinghouse" function, MRSC will be collecting city and county SEP A rules that have been revised to be consistent with the new DOE rules. We ask that you send or e-mail MRSC your revised SEP A rules as soon as they are completed so that we can share them with other cities and counties. Also, our professional consultant staff is available to field inquiries concerning a city or county's obligations regarding the revised SEP A rules. rCommentsl.l.lliiliil [Homel [Site Searchl [Site Indexl [What's Newl () () Page 3 of 3 I Date: October 19,1998 n c c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date October 13, 1998 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Chapter 17 63, Manufactured Housing Work session Purpose The purpose of today's work session is for the Planning Commission to review and discuss the following information on numerous issues relating to manufactured housing At the end of the work session, the Planning Commission should be prepared to give staff direction on which areas of Chapter 17 63, Mobile/Manufactured Homes need revisions Additional work sessions may be required to fully discuss all issues Backqround The Manufacturing Housing Industry has made significant strides over the last two decades in the quality, safety and design of manufactured homes Construction and safety are regulated by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Jurisdictions throughout the United States also regulate manufactured housing, just as they regulate "stick built" housing, through local codes Sources of information regarding the subjects/issues below are from the Washington Manufactured Housing Association, Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Welfor Sanders, July 1998, and development regulations from the City of Tumwater, City of Olympia and the City of Lacey Also, staff conducted site visits to numerouL manufactured housing developments (parks and subdivisions) in Lacey, Tumwater, Thurston County and Centralia Time was spent visiting four manufactured housing dealerships and speaking to residents in the developments and developers about process and costs Issues 1 DEFINITIONS - The Washington Manufactured Housing Association reviewed Yelm Municipal Code, Chapter 17 63, Mobile/Manufactured Homes and suggested changes to some of our definitions The suggested changes are consistent with Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Welfor Sanders, July 1998, and are as follows A. "Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling built according to the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 A manufactured home includes plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems, and is built on a permanent chassis C.\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD o o o B "Mobile home" means a factory-built dwelling built prior to the enactment of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards C "Manufactured home subdivision" means an area of land, platted in accordance with the subdivision or platting regulations of the city and the state of Washington, in which each parcel or lot is designed and intended to be owned in fee by a person or persons also owning and occupying the manufactured home D "Manufactured housing community" means a residential development typified by single ownership of land within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership Home sites within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary leasehold rights E "Designated Manufactured Home" means a manufactured home on an individual parcel that is used for residential purposes F "Modular home" means a structure constructed in a factory of factory assembled parts and transported to the building site in whole or in units which meets the requirements of the Uniform Building code This includes prefabricated, panelized, and modular units shipped either preassembled or assembled at the site 2. MINIMUM LOT AREA, WIDTHIFRONTAGE, AND MAXIMUM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS Attached at the end of this report is Table 7, Minimum Lot Area, Width/Fronl age, and Maximum Coverage Requirements, from Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Sanders, 1998, which shows a comparison of standards from jurisdictions throughout the United States Minimum Lot Area - The City requires manufactured home subdivisions to have 5,000 sq ft lots (R-4 and R-6 Districts) and communities (parks) to have 4,000 sq ft lots (R-6 and R-14 Districts) These lot areas appear to be consistent with those illustrated in Table 7 WidthlFrontage - The City requires manufactured home subdivisions to have a minimum 50' lot width (R-4 and R-6 Districts) and communities (parks) a minimum 40' lot width (R-6 and R- 14 Districts) These width/frontage requirements appear to be consistent with those illustrated in Table 7 Maximum Coverage - City code allows for a maximum 30% development coverage in the R-4 District, 40% development coverage in the R-6 District and 50% development coverage in manufactured home communities (R-6 and R-10 Districts) This compares with City code allowing 75% development coverage for "stick" built housing in all residential districts 1 Can maximum density be accomplished with low percentages of development coverage, taking into consideration requirements for open space, roads and stormwater facilities? 2 Attached garages/carports add to the overall percentage of development coverage To encourage the construction of garages/carports, should the maximum coverage allowed for manufactured homes be increased? C:\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD 2 o c c 3. MINIMUM SIZE AND MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS Attached at the end of this report is Table 6, Minimum Size and Maximum Density Requirements, from Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Sanders, 1998, which shows a comparison of standards from jurisdictions throughout the United States Minimum Size - Last year the Planning Commission reviewed the minimum and maximum parcel size and some minor revisions were made at that time Curr611t1y the parcel range for manufactured home subdivisions is between 5 and 20 acres The parcel range for communities (parks) is between 3 and 15 acres The minimum parcel size appears to be consistent with those illustrated in Table 10, however the table or the book does not provide any information on maximum parcel size Maximum Density - the underlying district (R-4 and R-6) dictate the allowed density with the exception of communities (parks) in the R-14 District. Maximum density allowed in the R-14 District is 6 units per gross acre 4. MINIMUM STREET-WIDTH AND SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS Attached at the end of this report is Table 10 Minimum Street-Width and Sidewalk Requirements, from Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Sanders, 1998, which shows a comparison of standards from jurisdictions throughout the United States Minimum Street Width - Last year the Planning Commission reviewed the street standards for manufactured home communities (park) and recommended to the City Council that the street standards for a community be increased to the City standard for residential street section The recommendation from the Planning Commission reflected the need for good pedestrian access and adequate parking in manufactured home communities After review by the City Council and strong concerns of increased development costs by the public the Council requested that this issue be re-addressed Table 10, Minimum Street-Width and Sidewalk Requirements, illustrates a variety of street widths and sidewalk requirements Current City standards (30' street width, plus 7' for streets with parking) fall somewhat in the middle of the various standard examples As a means to focus the discussions of adequate standards the Planning Commission may want to start with addressing the following questions 1 The land in a manufactured home community is not legally segregated when the community is developed Should the City view the interior road system as private driveways, private roads or public streets Should the interior street classification be relevant to the number of units? 2. If the interior street system is classified as private driveway's, what is the minimum width needed for 2-way traffic? (Any other classification would require streets to be built to City standards for a residential access street - 58' right-of-way) 3 Should on street parking be required? (Refer to #5 Parking Requirements below for follow-up question) Minimum Sidewalk Requirements - City code is very vague on the requirement of pedestrian facilities in manufactured home communities Section 17 63 180 C states "Mobile home parks C.\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD 3 o c o shall connect with traffic and pedestrian ways on all abutting or connecting streets" Attached at the end of this report is Table 10, Minimum Street-Width and Sidewalk Requirements, for examples of pathway/walkway requirements Manufactured home subdivisions are required to construct public streets which include sidewalks 1 Are pedestrian facilities needed in manufactured home communities? If yes, should they be conventional sidewalks (either 5' wide and adjacent to the curb or separated from the curb by a planter strip) or a pathway/walkway system 2 If a pedestrian pathway/walkway system, should all home...., common areas and public streets be connected? 5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Attached at the end of this report is Table 11, Parking Requirements, from Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Sanders, 1998, which shows a comparison of standards from jurisdictions throughout the United States Parking requirements - City code requires all single family units to provide a minimum of 2 off-street paved parking spaces This assumes homes are abutting public right-of-way where on-street parking is available 1 If on-street parking is not required in manufactured home communities, are 2 off- street parking spaces adequate to accommodate visitor parking or should visitor parking areas be required? 6. MINIMUM COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PERIMETER BUFFERS Attached at the end of this report is Table 9 Minimum Common Open Space and Perimeter Requirements, from Manufactured Housing Regulation, Design Innovations, and Development Options, Sanders, 1998, which shows a comparison of standards from jurisr'ictions throughout the United States Open Space requirements - City code requires all single family residential developments to provide 5% of the gross area in open space The 5% requirement equates to 363 sq ft per unit in the R-6 District and 545 sq ft per unit in the R-4 District. City requirements appear to fall in the middle of the examples provided in Table 9 Perimeter buffer requirements - City code does not address any perimeter buffer for either manufactured home subdivisions or communities with the exception of the Landscape Code, Chapter 17 80, which requires a 15' dense buffer for development which is adjacent to conflicting uses and land use districts The only time a 15' buffer would be required is along property lines which are adjacent to a non-compatible zoning district (residential next to commercial) The examples in Table 9 range from no buffering requirements up to 50' Questions the Planning Commission may want to consider are C"\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD 4 o o o 1 As discussed below in #7 Development/Design Standards for Designated Manufactured Homes, manufactured homes which are on individual lots or in subdivisions can be defined as designated manufactured housing If development standards are utilized for designated manufactured housing to increase comparability with existing "stick built" homes, is it necessary to require additional buffering? 2. If the Planning Commission wants to limit the development/design standards for a "designated manufactured home" should some buffering be required? 3 Development/design standards for manufactured homes in a manufactured home community (park) are different than designated manufactured homes (i e permanent foundations are not required in "parks") Should there be additional buffering requirements for land-leased communities? 4 What type of buffering would be appropriate? Vegetation only? Fence only? Or a combination of fencing and vegetation? Examples for Manufactured Home Communities (land-lease) buffering requirements from existing codes are A. The manufactured home community shall be screened along its perimeter by a permanent buffer area, not less than 50 feet wide, composed of trees, shrubs, or other suitable buffers approved by the City B Type I buffer of a minimum width of 30 feet shall be established along the exterior boundaries of manufactured home communities Examples Manufactured Home Subdivisions buffering requirements from existing codes are A. The subdivision shall be screened along its perimeter by a permanent buffer area, not less than 35 feet wide, composed of trees, shrubs, or other suitable buffers approved by the City The buffer area may be place on individual lots within the subdivision B Type I buffer of a minimum width of 30 feet shall be established along the exterior boundaries of manufactured home subdivisions 7 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATED MANUFACTURED HOUSING As defined above under #1 Definitions, designated manufactured homes are those units which would be placed on individual parcels This would include infilllots (parcels in existing neighborhoods) and lots in new or existing subdivisions (all platted lots) The following development standards are reviewed and discussed in Manufactured HousinG ReGulation, DesiGn Innovations, and Development Options, Welfor Sanders, July 1998 It is not uncommon for jurisdictions to utilize any combination of development/design standards to address compatibility issues Foundations - City code requires permanent foundations for manufactured housing with the exception of manufactured housing communities (parks) 1 Should the code specify backfill requirements such as requiring that no more than C"\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD 5 o c c 18" of the foundation shall be visible? 2 Should the code allow for other types of "skirting" , in place of a permanent foundations, if regulations can be administered to increase compatibility with "stick built" housing? An example of a variation to a permanent foundation would be to require pressure treated board (approved under state law) which is painted concrete gray and is backfilled so that no more than 18" is visible Width - City code requires a minimum width of 24' (double wide) Research indicates most codes range from a minimum width of 20' to 24' Roof Structure/Pitch - City code does not address roof pitch Manufactured homes come with a variety of roof pitches, with the most typical pitch a 3 12 or a 4 12 From my conversations with manufactured home representatives most people purchase a home with a 4 12 pitch "Stick" built homes also have a variety of roof pitches, with the most typical pitch a 412 1 Should the City require a minimum roof pitch or add language that requires the roof pitch to be compatible with the existing neighborhood? Roofing Material - City code does not address roofing material Again this is a feature that can contribute to the aesthetics of the neighborhood Most manufactured homes feature a composition roof An example of code text regulating roofing materials is All roofing material shall consist of one of the following categories wood, shingle, wood shake, synthetic composite shingle, or concrete tile Placement - City code does not address placement. Some jurisdictions require that the front or entrance of the home faces or parallels the principal street frontage This requirement is used to aid in compatibility with existing homes and the neighborhood Exterior Siding - City code does not address roofing material Again this is a feature that can contribute to the aesthetics of the neighborhood Most manufactured homes have lap siding made of vinyl, Masonite (wood product) or Hardy Board (concrete board) An example of code text regulating siding materials is Exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, plaster, concrete, or other material, which is finished in a nonglossy and nonreflective manner and which is compatible with surrounding development. Garages - The City code does not address garages For infill areas 30me of the issues that come to mind are 1 When existing garages are off an alley, should the City require that all new garages be accessed from the alley? This is a question regarding both "stick" built homes and manufactured homes 2. Should manufactured home subdivisions be required to provide garages (attached or detached) or carports? C.\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME. WPD 6 o c c 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES As defined above in #1 Definitions, a manufactured housing community is a land-lease development where the land is owned by a single party Home sites within the community are leased to individual homeowners (commonly referred to as Mobile Home Parks) Foundations/Skirting - City code does not require permanent foundations in manufactured housing communities (parks) 1 Should the code require specific types of allowed skirting, such as pressure treated board (approved under state law) or should the community (park) owner have full discretion, including metal skirting? 2 Should the City require manufactured homes in communities to be pit set? 3 Should the code specify backfill requirements or require that no more than 18" of the skirting shall be visible? 4 Should the code specify that all approved skirting be painted concrete gray to emulate a permanent foundation? Width - City code requires a minimum width of 24' (double wide) Research indicates most codes range from a minimum width of 20 to 24' However, in existing parks not all spaces have enough room to convert from a single wide to a double wide 1 Should the City allow for exceptions in existing parks? 2 Some jurisdictions have a separate section in their code that requires existing communities (parks) to meet current standards This can have a minimum of requirements from a single requirement (updating to double-wides) or can include updating any combination of requirements such as, open space, parking, stormwater, pedestrian walkways, etc) Should the City consider adding this section to our code? The remaining items in this section should be consider separate from designated manufactured homes because they are contained within a park. While subscribing to the below design details would make a community more aesthetically pleasing to the residents, this is an area which historically is prescribed by the park owners Short of regulating any or all of the below design guidelines, the City could require a manufactured home community land owner to have covenants that address these issues Roof Structure/Pitch - Manufactured homes come with a variety of roof pitches, with the most typical pitch a 3 12 or a 4 12 "Stick" built homes also have a variety of roof pitches, with the most typical pitch a 4 12 From my conversations with manufactured home representatives most people purchase a home with a 4 12 pitch Roofing Material - Again this is a feature that can contribute to the aesthetics of the neighborhood Most manufactured homes feature a composition roof An example of code text regulating roofing materials is C:\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME.WPD 7 c All roofing material shall consist of one of the following categories wood, shingle, wood shake, synthetic composite shingle, or concrete tile Unfinished galvanized steel or unfinished aluminum roofing shall not be permitted Exterior Siding - Again this is a feature that can contribute to the aesthetics of the neighborhood Most manufactured homes have sidings similar to a "stick" built home An example of code text regulating siding materials is Exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, plaster, concrete, or other material, which is finished in a nonglossy and nonreflective manner and which is compatible with surrounding development. Garages/Carports - Many of the manufactured home communities we visited did have attached two garages The garages were required by the park owner In those parks that did not have garages, there were a substantial amount of vehicles parked on the road 1 Should manufactured home communities be required to provide garages (attached or detached) or carports? 2 If garages or carports are not required, where should additional parking be provided, on the street or in parking areas? c c C"\OFFICE\PC\MANHOME WPD 8 ~ c '0 \ I ..~ '~ Jurisdiction Minimum Size of Development Maximum Density (number of units per gross acre, unless otherwise specified) Manufactured Home Developments: Albany, Oregon Hampton, Virginia Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota Poplar Bluff, Missouri Portland, Maine Roanoke County, Virginia Scappoose, Oregon West Sacramento California Manufactured Home Development Districts: Brookings, South Dakota Burnsville, Minnesota Charlolle Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Grand Island Hall County Nebraska Hays, Kansas land-lease developments subdivisions Johnson County, Kansas land-lease developments subdivisions Lancaster Texas Owensboro-Daviess County Kentucky Pinellas County, Florida subdivisions land-lease developments Springfield, Missouri Wichita-Sedgwick County Kansas Winston Salem-Forsyth County, North Carolina 5 acres 5 acres No requirement 5 acres No requirement 5 acres 2 acres 5 acres No requirement No requirement 2 ac res Varies depending on underlying district 5 ac res 10 acres 10 acres 25 acres 20 acres 10 acres 10 acres No Requirement 10 acres 5 acres 4 ac res 10 No requirement No requirement subdivision RS-4 7.2 per net acre RS-5. 8 7 per net acre land-lease developments RS-5. 9 per net acre No requirement land-lease developments 7 subdivisions No requirement No requirement Established in General Plan 6 No requirement 6 Varies depending on underlying district 7 No requirement 5 5 No requirement 8 Density limits established in comprehensive plan 8, less if maximum density permilled by comprehensive plan is less 8 No requirement 5 31 33 Jurisdiction Lot Area Width/frontage Maximum Lot Coverage Manulactured Home Development Districts: Brookings, South Dakota 7,500 sq. It. 50leet No requirement Burnsville, Minnesota 3,600 sq. It. (interior) 40 It. (interior) No requirement 4,500 sq ft. (corner) 50 ft. (corner) No requirement Charlotte Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 5,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. No requirement Grand Island/Hall County, Nebraska Same as underlying zone Same as underlying zone Same as underlying zone but not less than 6,000 sq It. Hays, Kansas land-lease developments 3,600 sq. ft. 40 It. No requirement subdivisions 6,000 sq. ft. 50 It. No requirement Johnson County, Kansas land-lease developments single-section 4,000 sq. ft. 45 ft. No requirement multisection 5,000 sq. It. 55 ft. No requirement subdivisions single-section 7,500 sq. ft. 75 It. No requirement multisection 10000 sq. ft. 85 ft. No requirement OLancaster, Texas individual lots (fee simple) 6,600 sq. ft. 60 ft. 40% land-lease developments 4,500 sq. ft. 40 ft. No requirement Owensboro-Daviess County, Kentucky land-lease developments 2,000 sq. It. No requirement 33.3% subdivision 3,000 sq ft. No requirement 33.3% Pinellas County, Florida land-lease developments 3,500 sq. ft. 20 ft. 40% subdivisions 6,000 sq. ft. 60 ft. 40% Springfield, Missouri 4,000 sq. It. 40 ft. 40% Wichita-Sedgwick County Kansas 5,000 sq. It. 40 It. No requirement Winston Salem/ Forsyth County North Carolina single-section 4 000 sq ft. 40 ft. No requirement multisection 5,000 sq ft. 50 ft. No requirement Poplar Blutf, Missouri, varies its minimum lot-size requirement in rela- tion to the district in which the development will occur In this city's RS-4 residential district, the minimum lot-size requirement for manutactured housing developments is 6,000 square teet; in the less restrictive RS-5 residential district, the minimum lot size permitted is 5,000 square teet Ollowing for some flexibility in minimum lot-size requirements recog- rn-z,es that manutactured dwellings vary significantly in size and that single-section homes will require less lot area than multisection homes Similarly, larger lots are otten more appropnate in subdivlslOn develop- o Jurisdiction Lot Area Width/frontage Maximum Lot Coverage Manulactured Home Developments: Albany, Oregon Hampton, Virginia land-lease developments single-section multisection subdivisions single-section multisection Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota Poplar Bluff, Missouri RS-4 RS-5 Portland, Maine Roanoke County, Virginia Scappoose, Oregon West Sacramento, Calilornia o Two-thirds of the communities that responded to the 1996 survey have set minimum lot- size requirements that exceed 4,000 square feet, with most of those specifying lot sizes of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Its important to note, however, that, while minimum lot-size requirements may have increased over the years, these minimums are still well within the range considered appropriate to such development. o 32 Same standards apply as lor conventional development. 3 800 sq. It. 40 feet No requirement 5,225 sq It. 55 feet No requirement 4725 sq. ft. 45 feet No requirement 6,300 sq. ft. 60leet No requirement 5,000 sq. It. 50 feet No requirement 6,000 sq It. 50 feet 50% 5,000 sq It. 45 feet 50% 4,500 sq It. 50 feet 50% 4,000 sq. It. 40 feet No requirement 2,500 sq. ft. No requirement No requirement "Density .shall not exceed density range as delined in the general plan for the property on which the park is located" housing land-lease communities. The 1986 survey found that about half of the 20 communities singled out for study had minimum lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Two-thirds of the communities that re- sponded to the 1996 survey have set minimum lot-size requirements that exceed 4,000 square feet, with most of those specifying lot sizes ot 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Its important to note, however, that, while minimum lot- size requirements may have increased over the years, these minimums are sbll well within the range considered appropriate to such development. More importantly, it is necessary to keep lot sizes in this range to allow for the development of aftordable developments, whether the homes are built on site or in a factory Three of the communities that have set minimum lot-size requirements- Winston Salem-Forsyth County, North Carolina, Hampton, Virginia, and Johnson County, Kansas-permit smaller lots when single-section homes are used. They require larger lots for multisection homes. Hampton, Vir- ginia, for example, allows lots as small as 3,800 square teet for single-section homes in manufactured home land-lease communities but has set a 5,225- square-foot minimum lot size for multi section homes. Some of the communities featured here also require that manufactured housing subdivisions provide greater lot area than land-lease communities. For instance, Pinellas County, Florida, which permits lots as small as 3,500 square teet m land-lease communities requires a mimmum lot size nearly twice that large (6,000 square feet) in manufactured subdivision developments. -- o square feet-the smallest mmimum lot size among the communities fea- tured here. In the other commumties that have establIshed a maximum coverage reqUIrement, lot coverage standards range between 40 to 50 percent. These maximum allowances for lot coverage are reasonable for the 4,000- to 5,000-square-toot lots required in most cases. Permitting less coverage would seem appropriate for the 2,OOO-square-foot lots permitted in Owensboro-Davies County, Kentucky Unit Setback and Separation All but three at the 20 communities featured in Table 8 have established minimum front, side, and rear setback requirements Front setbacks Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Unit Separation Jurisdiction (feet) (feel) (feet) (feet) Manufactured Home Developments: Albany Oregon 8 3 3 10 Hampton, Virginia land-lease developments 15 10, from one lot line 10 No requirement C 15, from the other subdivisions 20 15 15 No requirement Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 18 No requirement 15 20 "Corner lot shall have 18-foot setbacks from the curb line to any structure." Poplar Bluff, Missouri RS-4 15 6 10 if unit is No requirement perpendicular to fronting street 20 it unit is parallel to fronting street RS-5 15 6 10 it unit is 20 for perpendicular to and-lease fronting street developments 20 if unit is parallel to the tronting street Portland, Maine 20 10 20 No requirement Roanoke County, Virginia 20 5 10 26 Scappoose, Oregon 20 10 20 10 " on a corner lot the street side yards shall be 20 feet. r--\ West Sacramento California No requirement No requirement No requirement 15 ~ 35 Jurisdiction Required Common Open Space Perimeter Requirements Manufactured Home Development Districts: Lancaster, Texas No requirement No requirement Owensboro-Daviess County, Kentucky "Common areas for recreational, management or service facilities should be of adequate area and configuration to accommodate contemplated structures and uses, and should be conveniently located to all residents." Required (No data) Pinellas County Florida Land-lease development 10% of the gross site area must be devoted to open space and recreation facilities. Subdivisions: No requirement No requirement No requirement Springfield, Missouri Land-lease development 20% of the total area of the manufactured housing development, including required yards and bufferyards. Open space can not include areas covered by buildings, parking area, driveways, and internal streets. Open space must contain living ground cover and other landscaping materials. Subdivision: 30% of total lot area must be devoted to open space, including required yards and and bufferyards. Open space can not include areas covered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and internal streets. Open space must contain living ground cover and other landscaping materials. c Minimum yard along boundaries: 25 feet. "Whenever any development in an R-MHC district is located adjacent to a different district or a nonresidential use in an R-MHC district is located adjacent to a residential use in an R-MHC district, screening and a bufferyard shall be provided. "Whenever any development in an R-MHC district is located adjacent to a different zoning district or a nonresidential use in an district is located adjacent to a residential use in an R-MHC district, screening and a bufferyard shall be provided. Wichita-Sedgwick County, Kansas No requirement Land-lease development "All structures within. [the development] shall be setback at least 20 feet from public street rights- of-way Subdivisions: All structures within [the subdivision] shall be setback at least 10 feet from public street rights- of-way Winston Salem/Forsyth County, North Carolina 4,000 sq. ft. or 100 sq ft. per manufactured home, whichever is greater c A bufferyard of a minimum width of 30 feet must be established along each exterior property line except, where adjacent to a private street or public right-of-way external to the development, the bufferyard must be 50 feet. 4l o o o Jurisdiction Required Common Open Space Perimeter Requirements Manufactured Home Development Districts: Brookings, South Dakota Standards established for individual lots, no specific development provisoins for manufactured home development. Burnsville, Minnesota 10% of the land area of the development must be developed for recreational use. "A bufferyard of not less than 30 feet in width shall be landscaped with appropriate grass, shrubbery and trees around the entire perimeter of the development." "No structure shall be located within 30 feet of any property line defining the perimeter [of the development]" Grand Island/Hall County, Nebraska No data. No data. "A solid or semi-solid fence or wall, minimum six feet, maximum eight feet high, shall be provided between the manufactured home district and any adjoining property or property immediately across the alley which is zoned for residential purposes other than. .manufactured homes." "In lieu of said fence or wall, a landscape buffer may be provided not less than 25 feet in width and said landscape buffer shall be planted with coniferous and deciduous plant material so as to provide proper screening. When the landscape buffer is used [it] shall not be included as any part of a required rear yard." 'Effective screening shall be provided along boundaries of any [development] adjoining industrial, commercial, or lower density residential uses or zoning districts to serve as a buffer through the use of plantings, fencing, berms, or other landscaping features. At a minimum, the perimeter .shall be planted with shade and ornamental trees to accent and help visually screen the development." Landscaping: Shade and ornamental trees should be planted on the perimeter of the development and also provided within a land-lease development at a ratio of one tree for each three lots and wherever practical. Entrances must be accented with plantings of shrubs, ornamental trees, or shade trees. Such landscaping within the development and at the entrances is encouraged for manufactured housing subdivisions. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County North Carolina At least 8% of total area of the development must be devoted to recreational use by residents. 'Such use may include space for community buildings, gardens, outdoor play area, ball courts, racquet courts, etc." Hays, Kansas 200 sq ft. per home space, individual recreational areas must not be less than 5,000 sq. ft., at least 50% of the recreational facilities must be constructed prior to the development of 50% of the project and must be completed by the time the project is 75% developed. Johnson County Kansas "At least one private area shall be provided The size of such recreation area(s) shall not be less than 10% of the gross area of the [development] " 40 Jurisdiction Required Common Open Space Perimeter Requirements Manufactured Housing Developments: Poplar Bluff, Missouri Subdivisions in RS-4 districts must provide no less than 5% of the net developable land area for common open space. Subdivisions and land-lease developments in the RS-5 districts must provide no less than 10% of the net developable land area for common open space. The minimum size of a single parcel of ground for common open space for a subdivision or land-lease development must not be less than 7,500 sq. ft. "Buffering and/or screening shall be required along the exterior boundaries of manufactured home developments which adjoin residential areas. Screening or buffering may be required in other locations when a nuisance or obnoxious use would interfere with the enjoyment of the proposed development." Portland, Maine No requirement o 'The entire development shall be properly screened from abutting neighborhoods and uses. Such screen shall consist of plantings, or a combination of earth berm and plantings, not less than three feet in width and six feet in height at the time of initial occupancy of such development. Individual shrubs or trees, as approved by the city arborist, shall be planted so as to establish a dense visual screen year round. At least 50% of the plantings shall consist of evergreens." Roanoke County, Virginia 8% of the gross area of the development; the minimum "countable" space must be 5,000 contiguous sq. ft. "shall include passive and active facilities and be of an appropriate nature and location to serve the residents may include facilities, such as recreation centers, swimming pools, tennis and basketball courts, and similar facilities." "A Type C buffer yard. .shall be installed along the side and rear perimeter of the (development) Scappoose, Oregon 100 sq. ft. for each home must be provided for "a recreational play area, group, or community activities, but no recreational area shall be less than 2,500 sq ft. No recreation area is required if the individual manufactured home spaces contain 4,000 sq. ft. or more." No requirement West Sacramento, California No requirement o A land-lease development must be "enclosed by a masonry wall of at least seven feet in height located on property side of the street landscape setback. .and along all property lines adjoining another private property" 3Y o o o Jurisdiction Required Common Open Space Manufactured Housing Developments: Perimeter Requirements 200 sQ. ft. per home of outdoor or indoor recreation area that may be in one or more locations, at least one area must have minimum dimensions of 50 ft. by 100ft. A separate play area for children under 14 Buffering and screening is required. years; the area must be at least 2,500 SQ ft. with at least 100 SQ. ft. of area per home. Separate play areas are not required if development is either restricted to children over 14 or if home lots are at least 4,000 sQ It. Albany, Oregon Hampton,Virginia Land-lease and subdivision developments with 20 or more lots must provide 300 sQ. ft. of "green area" per lot to be retained as common area. This area must be aggregated in increments of at least 4,500'sQ. .ft. This area must be landscaped, and no more than 25% of it may consist of water area. Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 5% of the land area of the development. 38 Landqease and subdivision developments must "provide a perimeter screen composed of landscaping or a combination of landscaping and fencing, the intent of which is to limit ingress and egress on the .property, and to provide some buffering from adjoining uses. The screen shall be at least six feet in height and shall be located on all projectproperty lines that do not abut existing or proposed public rights-ol-way; such screening shall be set back at least 10 feet from any existing or proposed public right-of-way." "No structure, except fences as part of the perimeter screen, shall be permitted within 50 feet of the project property lines. Parking shall not be located closer than 20 feet from the property lines. All green area and landscaping within this buffer, except for that required for the perimeter screen, may be counted toward the green area [common open space] requirement." A 50-foot buffer must be provided in those parts of the development that are adjacent to single- lamily residential areas. A 20-foot buffer is required where the development is adjacent to a public street, residential development, commercial or industrial area, or park land. The buffer must be planted with a dense combination of trees, shrubs, and bushes as to form a screen to adjoining properties. ~~, r :\< .' o "'" Jurisdiction Width of Street Pavement Sidewalk/Walkway Requirements Manufactured Home Development Districts: Brookings, South Dakota No data No data Burnsville, Minnesota No data No data Charlotte Mecklenburg County, North Carolina "Internal streets and circulation patterns shall be adequate to handle the traffic to be generated by the development. "A walkway shall be constructed for each lot or space to connect parking spaces to the manufactured home entrance" Grand Island/Hall County, Nebraska No data No data Hays, Kansas Standards for private roadways: 24 feet, if no on-street parking 29 feet, if parking on one side of street 40 feet, if parking on both sides of street "Common walks shall be provided in locations where pedestrian traffic is concentrated. Common walks should preferably be through interior areas removed from the vicinity of streets. " Johnson County, Kansas c "All internal streets shall comply with the Street Construction Standards [for subdivision development] adopted by the County" "The provision and maintenance of an all- weather surfaced walk system shall be provided for pedestrian traffic along at least one side of all streets in the development and along streets adjacent to the development. Owensboro-Daviess County, Kentucky Serving up to 40 lots: 22 feet, if local access, no parking 27 feet, if local access, on-street parking Serving more than 40 lots: 24 feet, if local subcollector, no parking 34 feet, if local subcollector, with parking Serving more than 90 lots: 26, if minor collector street, no parking 37, if minor collector street, with parking "All manufactured home [lots] shall be connected to common walks or to streets, or to driveways, or to parking spaces. Such individual walks shall be a minimum width of two feet. Pine lias County Florida Land-lease development: May be private and built to the following dimensions. No data. minor street 20 feet (paved surface), 25 feet (right-of-way) collector street 24 feet (paved surface), 30 feet (right-of-way) subdivisions: No data Springfield, Missouri No data No data Wichita-Sedgwick County, Kansas No data No data Winston Salem-Forsyth County North Carolina c ~ "Each manufactured home space shall have direct vehicular access to an internal private access easement and street. A hard surface walkway being a minimum of two feet wide leading from the entrance of the manufactured home to its parking spaces or to the street shall be constructed" 47 o Jurisdiction Width of Street Pavement Sidewalk/Walkway Requirements Manufactured Home Developments: Albany Oregon 24-foot accessway if no parking allowed; 30 feet if parking is allowed on one side, and 36 feet if parking is allowed on both sides. First 50 feet of the accessway measured from the public street must be surfaced to a minimum width of 30 feet. "Permanent walkways of not less than three feet in width shall be provided from each manufactured home main entrance to the nearest public or private street. A minimum of four-foot-wide walkways shall connect each manufactured home space with common areas, public streets, and play areas. All walkways must be separated, raised, or protected from vehicular traffic and provide access for handicapped persons." Hampton, Virginia No requirement 22 feet, if no parking 27 feet, if parking on one side of street 32 feet, if parking on both sides of street Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 20 feet, if one-way street 28 feet, if minor street 32 feet, if collector "unless projected traffic patterns and density shall determine a greater width the greater width will be determined by the city engineer" o "A concrete sidewalk, not less than 30 inches wide shall be constructed adjacent to the street. [For] lots located within areas, such as cul-de- sacs, where, in the opinion of the planning commission, sidewalks shall serve no useful purpose, a variance can be granted." "The development shall provide publicly dedicated streets. Required improvements shall be provided in compliance with the street paving standards described in the [code]. Looped and cul-de-sac streets may be provided" as follows: 40-foot right-of-way 20-foot paving widths "when these streets serve less than 20 dwelling units and and when off-street guest parking is provided." Poplar Bluff, Missouri No requirement Portland, Maine No data No data Roanoke County, Virginia 11 feet, if one-way minor, no parking 20 feet, if minor, no parking 28 feet, if minor, parking on one side 30 feet, if collector, no parking 36 feet, if collector, parking both sides "Manufactured home lots not served by a public or private street may be served by a walkway, trail, or bikeway, provided that such pathway serves the front, rear, or side of the manufactured home lot. Each pathway shall be constructed of a hard-surface or gravel material and shall have a minimum width of three feet. Scappoose, Oregon 20 feet, if no on-street parking 30 feet, if on-street parking "Walkways shall connect each manufactured home to its driveway All walks must be concrete, well drained, and not less than 35 inches in width. o West Sacramento, California 25 feet, if no parking on street 35 feet, if parking on one side of street 45 feet, if parking on both sides of street 46 No requirement o o c' Jurisdiction* Minimum Number of Spaces Required Manufactured Home Developments: Albany, Oregon two per home and one guest space for every eight units Hampton, Virginia two off-street parking spaces for each home. "At least one space shall be provided on the lot housing the unit. The additional space may be provided in an off-street parking area located within 150 feet of the unit it is to serve." Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota two off-street spaces per home Poplar Bluff Missouri two spaces to serve each dwelling unit Roanoke County Virginia "Each manufactured home lot shall have the equivalent of two parking spaces. At least one of these spaces shall be provided on the manufactured home lot, unless the lot is accessed by a pathway Scappoose, Oregon two spaces per home. West Sacramento, California "There shall be the equivalent of two parking spaces per manufactured home site." Manufactured Housing Development Districts: Burnsville, Minnesota two off-street parking spaces per unit. Manufactured home developments "shall maintain a hard surface off-street parking lot for guests of occupants of at least one space for each five [homes] " Johnson County, Kansas "Each manufactured home lot shall have off-street parking space for at least two automobiles. One parking space for every three manufactured home lots must be provided for guests." Lancaster Texas "Two covered enclosed parking spaces per unit behind the front yard line shall be required" Owensboro/Daviess County, Kentucky Two off-street spaces per home, located on the lots they serve. Springfield, Missouri land-lease developments Two per home "Parking spaces for each manufactured home do not have to be provided on each lot, however one of the two required parking spaces required shall be located within 1 00 feet of the lot served" No data subdivision *Other communities that had responded to the survey did not list parking requirements. Rather than list them here as having 'no data, we have excluded them. provIsions tor the expansion of developments that are not in compliance with these standards Existing Manufactured Housing Developments 1 Schedllle for Improvements Manufactured housing developments law- fully existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance shall be required to meet the following standards ot this section within four years of the ordinance's adoption date. 49 o c o .~. ____n ___u_ --+ ~ SlIlgle-section homes with garages are be/l1g placed on small, narrow lots in this older inner-city neighborhood in Oakland I""' l , 1 ~ ] I 7\ rn t r ~ " . \J 3 ~ :t: ~ > ~ [ 1 1-1 J-. :1.":J'-0' ."5"6' '=)/1 '" ~~----~. _A ELMHURST'. ~ This manufactured home fits /n well with ex/sting homes 1Il this area of Oakland The appearance of this single-sectlOlZ home is enhanced by site-built additions, including the entryway a nd fencing '::::.. ;;- ril 0. ~ ~ $ "" 's 1 Each single-sectIOn home in this infill development will include a site-built garage, porch, and entryway Three of the homes planned for Allen Street will COlIS1St at slacked sections to crealI' two-story homes 53 c ;., RIVERBROOK,'" ,':',' ... A B I ...._Tl~i'J .I.~.i N ~l ~ i I ~--- ~I F'~O~(O u..TWT Fe... R"",o.&'l<>>< MHCI.').:..sn.Gc:. Nearly all the homes in the Riverbrook manufactured hOllle community in New Haven, Michigan, are smgle. sectIOn units (A) The reconfigured sIte plan (B) calls for 75 percent of the homes to be multisection units The reconfigured development has fewer units but is more responsIVe to current market demand V> I ~ ~ I ~ b' -0 Silvercrest Western Homes Corporation, the manufacturer of the new homes for the Lido Penmsula development, has designed a new two- story, single-section unit that can be placed on ven/narrow lots that are typically found in older developments These new homes are only 15.5 feet in wIdth (the Lido Peninsula units measure 27 feet in width) and offer an attached garage. These two-story units, measuring 27 feet X 27 feet were specifically designed to fit the small 35- X 3D-foot lots in this development This allows existing units to replaced by more roomy homes, without losing lots 111 the development 55 \ J :: NEW COLONY VILLAGE Factory-built sections are placed on a site-built first floor that includes a two-car garage. The finished home IS pictured below 56 TWO-STORY UNITS The single most Important design IIlnovatJOn and refinement 111 manUfac- tured housing over the past decade has been the two-story manufactured unit A less dramatic but important occurrence IS the placement of manufac- tured U1l1ts over basements. The first large-scale development of two-story manutactured homes is the New Colony VIllage development III the Balti- more area ThiS 52-acre land-lease development will consist ot 416 homes- 350 two-story and 66 one-story homes-sited on 30 acres of land ThiS gated community IIlcludes 22 acres at wetlands and forest preservatIOn land, a day care center, a conve1l1ence store, and a club house. Homes 111 thiS development range in size from a 940-square-foot, two-bedroom, one-story home up to a 1,540-square-foot, three-bedroom, two-story home. All ot the homes have a garage, some have a two-car garage Prices range from $97,990 to $130,990-not high for new single-family homes in Howard County, Maryland. First Floor Ph. If.'':'!-Pl,oa j eo,[ i OPT. ~~~I~~... ROOM K:~~~~~ 00 00 ICLW This unit includes a one-car szte-built garage and a porch. As the floor plans indicate, it has three bedrooms Second Floor Plan oPl.ClfRESTO'1YWl"fOOwS ~ j~~~.j HAlf ~OVNO ~~ OPTIONAL LOe, '0'8' <'7 , I o TO COMMUNITY CENTER & POOL t The plan (below) jar the jlrst phase oj New Colony Village mcllldes a day care facility, a community center and store, and an ample amount of open space an interior shot (right) from a second- story landmg The New Colony Village streetscape seen from a second- story porch :s: '" o 57 There are two slllgle-family prototypes for tlte Noji Gardens pro;ect Tlte first (A) is based on one of the New Colony village homes in Baltimore, Maryland (see above) The second (B) is based on a prototype developed by Susan Maxman Partners, Lid ,for the Milwaukee Urban Design Project (see below) ThiS Ulllt includes about 1 400 square feet of space. The price for either of these units will be about $155,000; the medwn price oj a single-famillf home in Seattle is $210,000 c '.NOJI GARDENS ~": :. .'. .'< i I , t-~II--t 1- BB i i , I o NO/I Gardens, a development of HomeSight, a local nonprofit commlll1ity development corporatloll, is planned for a low-income neighbor/lOad in southeast Seattle, Washington Tins 86-l/nit subdivision will /Ilclude: 1) fee 'lInple, singlejamily detached homes with garages acceessible from an alley (see drawing along 32"" Ave. S); 2) duplex and fourplex manufactured homes (along Juneau Street and the SU/TOUlldillg courtyards), 3) jee simple triplex rowllOuse units that may be slie built, modular, or ml7JllIfactured (at bottom of site plan), and a Site-built condoml11ium apartment building with 20 units. The condominiu/llunits will range in price from $85,000 to $100,000 Tins traditional site plan includes short blocks to encourage walk/llg and an alley is provided to allow driveways and garages to be placed at the rear of some lots. Two centrally located and landscaped courtyards with tot lots and benches will also be provided. The developer will offer home ownership counseling, and down payment assistance will be available to some low- and 1IlOderate-income households. I : I 9 d:l <;> --t " .., , () Cl 1 Two different styles of fee-simple duplex Ul11ts IC and D) Will be offered in Noji Gardens Like the single-family models depicted above (A and B), these units were mspired by the models in Ba/tmlOre and Milwaukee o J T 9 <l The fourplex unit (E) IS created bl! atlacltillg duplexes at tile/I' garases These IIIllts will be przced at about S125,OOO t G A ? " t ., a 1 B - -T 9 '" -". I , \) 1. 5Y lAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES The desIgn of manufactured homes in land-lease communitIes has also improved sIgnificantly sll1ce the 1986 PAS Report. Most notable has been the "developer series" homes that are desIgned to be virtually indistll1- gUlshable from site-bUIlt housll1g These homes have conventIonal sIding and steeper roofs that are constructed ot tradItional roofing materials. On- sIte addItions such as garages, porches, gables, ilnd speCIal entryway treatments further enhance the appearance of these manufactured Ul1lts. Santiago Estates, developed in 1990 by Watts Industries, is one a number of manufactured home communitIes in Calitornia developed by a traditIonal developer whose previous work was limited to site-built housing This Los Angeles, California, community is targeted to firsHime buyers and is one of the first land-lease commumties in whIch manutactured homes can be purchased as real property through conventional 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages. Homes range in size from 1,250 to 1,625 square feet and were priced from $94,900 to $113,900, with a monthly lease payment of about $466. The average cost of a comparable site-built home in the Los Angeles area in the early 1990s was $250,000 The homes in this development include central air conditIonll1g, two- car garages, and landscaping with sprinklers. o A I i I o c F o 60 B D E Three examples of "developer series" manufactured homes in California, deslg be virtually indistinguishable from SIte-built housing, Canyon View Estates development in the City of Santa Clarita in Los Angeles Cot/llty was develope Canyon View Partnership and includes 400 homes priced ill 19QO from $79,01 $101,000 with two- and three-bedroom, two-bath units that range in size froll to 1,600 square feet Stucco exteriors and tile roofs gives homes in the Ra11cho development in Escondido 1111 appearance that is consIstent with regional '1Ot/~ styles Homes in SantIago Estates (C), Los Angeles, California, range in size t 1,250 to 1,625 square feet Prices range from $94,900 to $113,900 These "dcc series" homes have many enhancements (0, E, F) that add to their attractive! f ~' ~t 'Ii i!1' :<;;.: -/:;., :0 o o URBAN INFILL Many low- and moderate-income, inner-city families spend more than half their income on housing that is often substandard and poorly maintained. In many older urban areas, rehabilitating dilapidated housing has been the primary means of increasing housing opportunities for these families. Increas- ingly, this approach is proving to be too costly, especially when the objective is to resell these rehabilitated units to needy households. A growing number of local officials are considering the use of manufactured housing as an al tema ti ve to more costly new site-built and rehabilitated housing. In the past, manufactured units have rarely been used in urban infill development. Local zoning ordinances may exclude such housing from exist- ing residential neighborhoods where affordable new housing is badly needed, and, in many cases, the traditional manufactured housing styles may not be entirely compatible with existing housing styles in older urban neighborhoods. In 1995, the MHI launched the Urban Design Project to demonstrate that manufactured housing can be designed so that it is compatible with existing housing in established urban neighborhoods and yet be more affordable. MHI hired Susan Maxman and Partners, Ltd., a nationally recognized architectural firm to design manufactured homes for urban infilllots in five cities-Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, Birmingham, Alabama, Washington, D c., Louisville, Kentucky; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In each city, the architects and MHI staff have worked with local residents, developers and lenders, public officials, and manufacturers to develop manufactured hous- ing designs that are appropriate for urban infill. These efforts are high- lighted in the following pages. The Milwaukee initiative, which is part of an ongoing neighborhood planning effort and builds on an earlier MHI- sponsored Design Studio, is examined in greater detail on pages 65-68 :":WILKINSBU.RG .c".' " A x :; c x :; Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, a community adjacent to Pittsburgh, was chosen as the pilot location to kick-off the Urban Design Project. The Wilkinsburg project plans to build and place four manufactured homes on scattered infilllots The first, a two-story, three-bedroom home, was placed on a corner lot at Kelly Street and Mifflin Avenue in 1997 The project development team in Wilkinsburg, coordinated here and in the other communities by Susan Maxman and Partners, Ltd., and MHI staff, included the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, Wilkinsburg officials, ACTION Housing, Inc. (a loealnonprofit housing developer), and New Era Building Systems, Ine. (the manufacturer) Residents of the Kelly Street and Mifflin Avenue area were involved in the development process through a senes of focus groups. The information gained from the focus group sessions was especially useful to the project architects in their efforts to design the first home. Decorative porches (A) and post detailing (B) ensures that the manufactured housing designed for infilllots in Wilkinsburg resembles existing housing in the area. Hardi-board, a durable fiber cement material (C), provides a rich, woodlike finish that can be painted. 61 i 1: f ~ ~. ., ~; o WASHINGTON, D.C. o BEDROOM 9'.6.)(13' I i0 OININGROOM 12'.O.x10'.o- i:: I W PORCH b I 0, The Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, with the support of the Potomac Electric Power Company, plans to build two manufactured homes, including a three-bedroom, single-story home that will be built in two sections, and a two-story home. The one-story unit was completed in the spring of 1998 The manufacturer for the Washington project is Schult Homes Corporation. The floor plan for the one-story unit is shown above. The unit is placed on a foundation (A) by crane (B) and finishing work (C and D) is done on site, resulting in the completed home (E) c o ~ D ;:: ::z; E ;:: ::z; ;:: ::z; 63 LOUISVILLE o The Louisville, Kentucky, project consists of six infill sites in the Smoketown neighborhood, an area of the city that is undergoing a major redevelopment effort. A stacked single-section home has been placed on one of the lots selected, and single-section homes will be placed on the five other sites. The two-story home employs a "camel back" design that sets back the second level so that there is only a single story at the front lot line. This style of housing became common in Louisville, dictated by a now-defunct local property tax scheme that taxed property based on the number of stories at the front lot line. .0 ;:3 '! ~ 111'-0" iit+ I OD [OJ 0 ..DllDOtl8 FAMILY" _ 11'.6""'5' I c. ~ c ~ ~ 10"-0" ~ ll"-a" ~ c '" ~ o FRONT ELEVATION o The preference among residents that took part in focus group sessions was that the design of new infill homes should embrace the" camel back" design. The stacked, single-section configuration also allows for a manufactured home to be placed on a very narrow, urban in fill lot that measures only 21 feet in width. The development team includes the Neighborhood Development Corporation (a local nonprofit group), the Louisville Economic Opportunity Corporation, and New Era Building Systems, Inc. (the manufacturer) <> L1VI"~~~i~[rg DO L C) PJRST FLOOR PLAN 64 x :; 16'-(} 16' \1" '! ~ C) SECOND FLOOR PLAN o CITYHOMES>. .', ," 'I, i I The design of homes in the recently completed CityHomes subdivision, located within two blocks of the planned manufactured home development, had to be considered by the project's design team. Like the CityHomes unit, the manufactured homes must also be two-story homes and include porches, a raised foundation, and basement. This subdivision was one of a number of new housing initlatives called for in the Midtown Triangle Neighborhood Plan. o lham~ll~ I ................0"'" C "-'" M~.__l I . '4p/dated units can be replaced with manufactured lies. The Midtown neighborhood has experienced l.'~L ( ie decline over the past 20 years. The ~"---../offers many opportumties for siting new :ufa~t~red homes-provided they are compatible eX/stlllg homes on adjacent or nearby lots. An abundant number of vacant lots and III some cases entire vacant blocks (see map below), mostly owned by the city of Milwaukee, are available for new homes in the development area. The map to the left shows the proposed redevelopment scheme as per the neighborhood plan 67 -- ~--'-'--------~? ~------------- c; City of Yelm c c 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 19,1998400 P M YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - Minutes not available at time of mailing 2 Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public hearings have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Public Hearing Applicant: City of Yelm Proposal Amendments to Title 14, Environment Location City wide Staff report enclosed 4 Zoning Code Amendments Worksession Worksession on Chapter 17 63, Manufactured/Mobile Homes Staff report enclosed 5 Other' Nominating Committee for 1999 Officers 6 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meetin1, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16,1998,4.00 PM o o o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No, The meeting was called to order by Tom Gorman at 400 P m Members present: Glenn 'Blando, Margaret Clapp, E.J. Curry, Tom GormaD1l, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, John Thomson. Guests: Glen Cunningham-City Council Liaison, Ed Flood, O.P. Klotzner, Roger McKoWD1I, Randy Walker. Staff" Cathie Carlson, Gibran Hashmi, Dana Spivey Members absent: Roberta Longmire Approval of Minutes: 98-08 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 1998. CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Public Hearina: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 402 pm (Councilman Glen Cunningham left the room) Tom then asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Tom asked if any member of the Planning Commission had received any information prior to the hearing? None Tom called for the staff report. Cathie Carlson. showed the exact spot on the zoning map, and gave the staff report. Cathie stated- staff recommends the Planning Commission forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone to City Council for approval 98-09 Tom asked if there was any public comment? There was none Tom then asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff? Marqaret Clapp asked if the City still owns the old Morris Road right-of-way property? Cathie said yes, it will remain city owned and maintained Bob Isom asked about a potential "re"-re-alignment of Morris Road? Cathie said that statement is not true Tom asked if there were any more questions? There were none Tom then closed the public hearing at 4.09 p m MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY BOB 150M TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVIE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE. MOTION CARRIED. City Councilman Glen Cunningham returned Zonina Code Amendments: Work session - on Chapter 17 28, Large Lot Yelm Planning Commission September 21, 1998 Page 1 o Commercial Zone (C-3) Tom Gorman changed the format of the work session, so that the guests could speak first. Tom then asked Randy Walker to start with his public comments Randv Walker introduced himself and stated that he is representing Roger McKown Mr. Walker spoke about his clients feelings about the rezone, and the impact it has had on his plans for his futurQ retirement. Mr. Walker asked if the report from the City's attorney (Sandy Mackie) is back? Cathie stated that there was a report, but it was done verbally to the City Administrator Cathie also clarified to Mr Walker that comments his client (Mr McKown) has made to this point have only been to the City Council, the Planning Commission is not aware of Mr McKown's concerns yet. Mr. Walker then asked what the time limit is on a rezone being barred after an annexation occurs? Cathie said that she did not know the exact language or ordinance, but the City's Comprehensive Plan (which is a Joint Plan with Thurston County) says that if a rezone is done in the next three years it must be of mutual consent, whether it is inside or outside the city Cathie also stated that presently, if an annexation occurs- the zoning is pre-determined in the Comprehensive Plan o Tom commented that anytime something happens in the city which impacts a property owners financial plight it is important, but he doesn't feel that the Planning Commission has enough information to do something about it today Tom suggested that Mr Walker, Mr McKown and City Staff meet on this issue, and if the Planning Commission can help at a future date they will do so Mr. Walker then asked what the Planning Commission thought about a variance? Tom stated he feels the PC has struck a reasonable balance with variances and other matters, and he thinks the PC would certainly make any considerations that they are authorized and empowered to do Tom added that the PC has been pretty sensitive to "bureaucratic decisions" which impact a property owners financial situation Roaer McKown stated that "he encouraged many people to annex to the City back in 1992, and he felt that it would be a good marriage between the city and ~ this annexation" - Mr. McKown continued stating "they were never notified that the zoning was going to change, other than the little blurb in the newspaper about the public hearing, we were never notified - and a lot of people including Mr Blando, Mr Flood and others were very upset." Tom stated that since there is a Planning Commission member who receives information pertaining to matters like these on the county level, and this could possibly be a topic at a future public hearing, its probably not appropriate for us to take too much input at this point. Mr. McKown stated that he has been addressing this problem since January of this year, has had the opportunity to sell his property twice and can not do so because he can't subdivide his property Tom stated that the PC doesn't want to give anyone the "run-around" - but we want to follow the appropriate process, and we will give fair consideration to anything that comes before us Tom suggested Mr McKown keep working with the staff o Cathie added that at today's work session, the PC can take public comment regarding the way Chapter 17.28 is written, the minimum lot size, the requirements etc. - not site specific comments though Tom then asked if anyone else would like Yelm Planning Commission September 21, 1998 Page 2 o to comment? Ed Flood stated that he feels it is unfair and unjust that a couple can't sell an acre or two of their own property Cathie then gave a staff report. Cathie ended with the issues and questions the PC should consider are 1 What is the minimum percentage of the site which should remain in one parcel to meet the intent of the large lot commercial district (60%, 70%, 80% or somewhere in between?) 2 Once the percentage of the one parcel is established, does it matter how the remaining parcel is divided into parcels or commercial pads? c John Thomson asked Cathie to explain a situation, if he has six acres in an area zoned commercial, can he do anything - divide it? Cathie said no, he wouldn't be able to go through the subdivision process, but he could do a binding site plan Cathie explained the binding site plan ordinance - there is a range of detail in a binding site plan application, from a very general - non-descript type to a very detailed plan, it would be surveyed, show probable types of uses, and approximate amount of storm water area needed If someone decides to do the more detailed~ plan, that could actually be recorded with the County as a survey, then they would have legal commercial pads to sell John inquired about the commercial zoning, after a binding site plan process could someone buy an acre and build a house on it? Cathie said no Mr. McKown addressed John Thomson, and stated that his point was when they annexed into the city they were not zoned C-3, the rezone changed them to C-3, and they were not notified Mr. McKown then asked Cathie about earlier this year, could they or could they not do anything but sell the whole piece of property? Cathie said that is how it was until they addressed the situation, and the City's attorney suggested the binding site plan process Tom asked if there were any more questions from the PC for the staff? Ray Kent stated he was concerned about the smaller pieces of land, do we want pads that small? Cathie referred to the matrix included in the PC lJackets Tom stated that he feels the market drive is a good one Cathie concurred stating she also thinks the market is a good self regulator on these types of things Tom added the financial institutions are too Tom asked Cathie if she wants the PC to consider just the change of the language? Cathie said yes The group then looked at their handouts and packet information Cathie stated that she would like the PC to suggest what the language should include Marqaret Clapp asked Cathie to clarify the binding site plan, it is something that is already allowed? Cathie said yes, it is part of our current code, and she just wants the PC to help expand the language within this section so that people have a clearer understanding c Bob Isom stated that he personally feels that 70% is a bit restrictive, if someone has ten acres and the city requires them to tie up 70% of it - it seems very limiting E.J. Currv agreed Bob stated he would rather see it at 40% to give a property owner a chance Tom said that at 40% it would no longer be a large lot, 60% might Yelm Planning Commission September 21, 1998 Page 3 c c c work. Bob asked what the definition of a large-lot is? Cathie reviewed the current zoning code and referred to the intent section as the definition Joe Huddleston asked about the size of the future Safeway? Cathie stated they are on ten acres, the rep 's from Safeway have told her that they usually look for about 7-10 acre pieces More discussion followed Marqaret Clapp stated that she was not on the PC when the C-3 went in, but she has to assume that a lot of thought went into it, and she supports the content of protecting an area that is established for larger lots just as the city's industrial should be preserved and not let any residential move in there Marqaret also ~ thought that 40% would be defeating the purpose to go much smaller, if there is going to be a large lot designation There was more discussion John Thomson asked about a person who owns a two acre piece, how can we consider that a "large-lot" and why would we have a formula to apply to below ten acre pieces? Cathie stated that what will happen then is within a zoning district you'd be making discriminations based on property sizes, that's the whole idea of having zoning districts - the rules apply to everyone - there will always be a wide variety of parcel sizes within each zoning district, but we can't discriminate Tom then took a poll from the PC Results were Four for 70%, three for 60% and one for 50% There was a question of do we specify minimum lot size, or let the market drive it? It was the consensus of the PC to let the market drive it. John asked about the minimum size of a parcel to be subdivided or developed in the C-3 district shall be ten acres, if its less than ten acres you can't subdivide it? Marqaret addressed the question, saying no - if its more than ten acres the smallest parcel you can be left with is ten acres Cathie added that there aren't any parcels in that situation so everyone would have to go through the binding site plan process Other: Cathie stated that at the next scheduled PC meeting, October 19, 1998, there will be a work session on Chapter 17 63-Manufactured/Mobile Homes Cathie would like to discuss alternative foundations, new cosmetic features, aesthetics etc Meeting adjourned at 5'05 pm Respectfully submitted, ~,_J' Dana Spivey rwd Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission September 21, 1998 Page 4 -c o c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date. September 14, 1998 To. Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Case No ZON-988823- YL, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of the southwest corner of Bald Hills Rd and Morris Road LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I - Public Hearing Notice Exhibit II - SiteNicinity Map A. Public Hearina Obiective: The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with the applicable City of Yelm Municipal Code(s) and the Yelm Comprehensive Plan After consideration of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions. request additional information from the applicant and/or staff, continue the public hearing or make a recommendation of action to the City Council. B. Proposal: The proposal is for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of the southwest corner of Bald Hills Road and Morris Road The site is currently designated as low density residential in the comprehensive plan and R-4 District from the zoning code. The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan is for the site to be designated as commercial and the zoning designation changed to C-2 Heavy Commercial C. Backaround: The City annexed the site in January 1998 Prior to the annexation, the City completed a road improvement project which included the realignment of Morris Road Prior to the realignment the subject property was on the southeast corner of Bald Hills. Road and Morris Road and adjacent to properties zoned Low Density Residential (R-4). With the realignment of Morris Road the property is now adjacent to Commercial properties. Morris Road now separates the parcel from properties zoned residential. D. Findinas: 1 Applicant. City of Yelm/Warren Lasher 2. Location Southwest of the Morris Road/Bald Hills Intersection 3 Existinq Land Use. Vacant land * R.<<yckd paper o c o Case No ZON-988223- YL Page 2 September 14, 1998 4 Zonino Low Density Residential (R-4) 5 Area Land Use Commercial, Residential and vacant. 6 Water City water is available to the site 7 Sewer City S T E.P sewer is available to the site 8 Critical Areas Sensitive Aquifer 9 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 10 Police Protection City of Yelm APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residential Yelm Municipal Code Yelm Municipal Code Title 14, Environment, Title 17, Chapter 17 96, Amendments, Rezones and Variances, Chapter 17 12, Low Density Residential (R-4) and Chapter 17 27, Heavy Commercial D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of the subject site o o c Exhibit I Public Hearing Notice City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (ZON-8223) REZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The City of Yelm Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on a Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (ZON-8223) The proposed area to be rezoned is located on the southwest corner of Morris Road and Bald Hills Road The proposal is for a rezone from low density residential (R-4) to heavy commercial (C-2). The public hearing will be held on Monday, September 21, 1998, at 4'00 pm in Yelm City Hall Council Chambers, located at 105 Yelm Ave W , Yelm, WA. All interested parties are invited to attend Written comments must be received prior to the hearing to be considered by the Planning Commission, and should be directed to the Yelm Planning Commission, PO Box 479, Yelm WA 98597, or delivered to City Hall Additional information may be obtained by contacting Cathie Carlson, City Planner, at Yelm City Hall, (360) 458-8408 ATJEST 1~j?/4f1 ~~Z A&'nes Bennick, City ClerklTreasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published, Nisqually Valley News Thursdav. September 10.1998 Mailed to adjacent property owners September 9. 1998 Posted in public areas September 9. 1998. " * Recycled paper Exhibit II SiteNicinity Map 1\ (~ SUBJECT SITE 3400502 4 34004 01 3400501 0:2~D MORRIS RIGHT-OF-WAY 5106TH AVE SE 5 3400 "'~ \__J 14 -04 3NEW MORRIS RD RIGHT-OF-WAY I 32007 3 q fr: (/) 1--1 fr: gj SS-~148 z: 6 32006 33004 o (::::::j rv o -......J i:::j ~ ~ .~ j;5 @-04 o o c VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING: YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 21,1998 TIME: 4 00 PM lOCATION. YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s): 3 REZONE & COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NAMF It AnnRF~~ I2z u cVn 1/ R (1/cr Ik r(/ r G LepJ (tN N f JJ(:, I-Utf'41 C ,t- --~~~~~ MAli IN~ II~T? I ~PFAKFR? K Ra;<eQ. t-v\c..t~ ~ ~\JA >( (\ .~ o c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date September 15, 1998 To Yelm Plannmg CommissiOn From. CathIe Carlson Re: Development/Lot SIze m the C-3 Zomng Dlstnct From the Planmng CommIssiOn dIscussiOns at the August 17, 1998, meetmg I have developed examples regulatmg the SIze of newly created lots In the C-3, Large Lot CommercIal Dlstnct. The examples represent propertIes that would be reqUired to mamtam at least 60%, 70% or 80% of the sIte m one parcel or commercIal pad wIth vanous configuratiOns of lots or commercIal pads for the remamder of the sIte. The Issues and questions the Planning CommIssion should consIder are: 1 What IS the mmlmum percentage of the sIte WhIch should remam m one parcel to meet the mtent ofthe large lot commercIal dlstnct (60%, 70%, 80% or somewhere m between?) The intent of the C-3 District can be found on page 17 I-Ion the enclosed copy of Chapter 1728, Large Lot Commercial Zone. 2. Once the percentage of the one parcells estabhshed, does It matter how the remammg parcells dIvIded mto parcels or commercial pads? * Ra:ycld papa o o o Sections: 17.28.010 17.28020 17.28.030 17.28.040 17.28.050 17.28.060 17.28.070 17.28080 17 .28.082 17.28.085 17.28.090 17.28.100 17.28.110 Chapter 17.28 LARGE LOT COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3) Intent Permitted uses Prohibited uses Environmental performance standards Site area Building location Minimum floor area Height Ingress and egress Off-street parking Parking area and circulation design Landscaping Stormwater runoff 17.28.010 Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to: A. Provide for the location of the facilities and services needed by the traveling public, B Permit commercial uses and activities which depend more heavily on convenient vehicular access than pedestrian access; C. Limit location to sites having safe and efficient access to major transportation routes; J) Identify the types of commercial qses appropriate or acceptable in the larg~ lot commercial zone; E. Provide development guidelines to enhance the efficient operation of these districts, and to achieve minimum adverse impact on the community as a whole, especially on adjacent properties having different land use characteristics. 17.28.020 Permitted uses. A. Specific types of uses permitted in this district are those commercial activities that are permitted outright in the commercial zone (C-l) and the heavy commercial zone (C-2). B Similar or related uses permitted and criteria for determination of similarity or relatedness, as follows: 1. Uses similar to, or related to, those listed in subsection 17.28.02O(A) are permitted upon a finding of the approval authority and/or the site plan review committee that a particular unlisted use does not conflict with the intent of this chapter or the policies of the Yelm development plan; 2. The criteria for such fmding of similarity shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. That the proposed use is appropriate in this district, b. That the development guidelines for permitted uses can be met by the proposed use, c. That the public need is served by the proposed use. C. Special uses may be permitted as provided for in Chapter 17.66 of this title. D On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities as an accessory use to any activity generating hazardous waste and lawfully allowed in this zone, provided that such facilities meet the state siting criteria adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 70.105.210 17.28.030 Prohibited uses. Uses other than those identified or described in Section 17.28.020 of this 17.1 - 1 e chapter are prohibited, including but not limited to A. Auto wrecking yards including junk, scrap metal and other material salvage operations including recycling centers, B Storage of explosives or materials of such character or in such quantities as to constitute a significantly greater hazard to persons, property or environmental health than that posted by materials commonly used or stored in the ordinary retail and service establishments permitted in this district. 17.28.040 Environmental performance standards. A. It shall be the responsibility of the operator and/or the proprietor of any permitted use to provide such evidence and technical data as the approval authority may require to demonstrate that the use or activity is or will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards of Chapter 17.57 of this title Failure of the approval authority to require such information shall not be construed as relieving the operator and/or the proprietor from compliance with the environmental performance standards of this title 17.28.050 Site area. Minimum size of any parcel to be~Q~nvjfl~Q-developed in this district shall be 10 acres .~~m~m!!?t.fmlp~cffi1~~tQ~ll1,;)(:U!l^k!~!~tfdtm!~1illJ~[tm~~m~m::'7~~]!nlQ~e ~~'-f%:"7Ybfm.."'. .' %7t\1im........... ""'2W?. '11m ~l!!!ng"~~~.JE; 17.28.060 Building location. Location of buildings or structures on site, if adjacent parcels are in the same zoning district or in another commercial or industrial district, shall be as follows. A. Setbacks from side property lines fifteen feet; B Setbacks from rear property lines fifteen feet; C Setbacks from front property lines fifteen feet. 17.28.07o--Minimum-floOI area. Minimmu 100,000 squaIe feet of gross floor area per stIUCture 17.28.080 Height. Maximum height of buildings shall be fifty-five feet. 17.28.082 Ingress and egress. Ingress and egress at the site shall be limited to one driveway for each two hundred feet of frontage. Where only one driveway serves a site, said driveway shall not be less than twenty-five feet nor more than thirty-six feet wide All driveways shall be not less than one hundred fifty feet from intersecting right-of-way lines, measured from the centerline of the driveway Curbs and gutters or permanently fixed bollards shall be provided to limit other vehicular access to the site 17.28.085 Off-street parking. A. The provisions of Chapter 17.72 shall apply B The minimum parking requirements speCIfied in this section may be adjusted in the site plan review process under the following conditions when in their opinion an adjustment will be in accord with the purposes of this code, and will not create an adverse impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the subject property, or in the general vicinity of the subject property The following factors shall be considered in the determination of such impacts and such adjustments. 1 Two or more uses may share a parking area or garage if: a. The total number of parking spaces provided is at least equal to the sum of the minimum number of spaces required for each use, or b The uses are operating during different hours and the number of parking spaces is at least equal to the minimum number of spaces required for all uses operating at the same time, and no greater than the maximum number of spaces permitted for all uses operating at the same time 2 Where adjoining parking facilities of two or more ownerships are developed and 171-2 o o o o o o designed as one parking facility, a reduction of up to fifteen percent of the total combined required parking spaces may be permitted. 3 The continuation of joint or shared facilities shall be assured by a sufficient legal document such as a covenant or reciprocal easement agreement or recorded covenant on the approved site plan or by participation in a local improvement district. Alternative programs that may be considered by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee under this section include, but are not limited to the following a. Private vanpool operation, b Transit/vanpool fare subsidy, c Imposition and maintenance of a charge for parking, d. Provision of subscription bus services, e Flexible work hour schedule, f Capital improvements for transit services, g Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, h. Participation in the ride-matching program, 1. Reduction of parking fees for carpools and vanpools, j Establishment of a transportation coordinator position to implement carpool, vanpool and transit programs, k. Bicycle parking facilities C Off-street parking requirements for uses similar or related to, or any use not specifically listed in the Yelm Development Guidelines, Section 4, Transportation, Table 1, shall be determined by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee after consultation with the director of public works on the basis of the requirement for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created for similar or related uses in Yelm, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate for the establishment of minimum and maximum parking requirements D Parking spaces may be designed and constructed for up to twenty-five percent of the required number for compact size cars An applicant must clearly identify all spaces designed and constructed for compact car use The approval authority and/or site plan review committee may approve the design and designation of more than twenty-five percent of the spaces for use by compact cars if the applicant demonstrates that no adverse impact will result. E. Parking areas or garages shall be designed to provide for off-street vehicle circulation to adjoining property and parking areas where physically feasible, except that driveways and parking aisles should not cross pedestrian linkages in C-3 land use districts. F Convenient, marked pedestrian access shall be provided from parking areas to pedestrian linkage systems and from parking areas to principal uses G An owner/developer may install the required parking spaces in phases if a phased schedule has been approved by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee This schedule must specifically indicate when the minimum parking requirements of Section 17.24 140 will be provided. The approval authority and/or site plan review committee may permit the use of temporary parking areas with appropriate screening as part of a phasing schedule In addition, the approval authority and/or site plan review committee may require a performance assurance device to insure conformance with the requirements and intent of Section 17.24 140 17.28.90 Parking area and circulation design. A The city public works department or approval authority shall have the authority to fix the location, width and manner of approach of vehicular ingress or egress from a building or parking area to a public street and to alter existing ingress and egress as may be required to control street 171-3 o o o Proposed C-3 Minimum lot size (through binding site plan) examples 60% of the site left in one parcel Development Minimum Max 3 parcels with/1 Max 5 parcels with/1 Area parcel size parcel at 600/0 parcel at 600/0 10 Acres 6 acres One - 6 acres, Two - 2 One - 6 acres, Four - 1 acres acre 8 Acres 4 8 acres One - 48 acre, Two - 1 6 One - 4 8 acre, Four - 8 acres acre 6 Acres 3 6 acres One - 3 6 acre, Two - 1 2 One - 3 6 acre, Four - 6 acres acre 5 Acres 3 acres One - 3 acre, Two - 1 acre One - 3 acre, Four - 5 acre 3 Acres 1 8 acres One - 1 8 acres, Two - 6 One - 1 8 acres, Four- 3 acre acre 1 Acres 6 acre One - 6 acre, Two - 8712 One - 6 acre, Four - 4356 sq ft sq ft C \OFFICEIZONING\C3MINEX2.WPD Example for a 10 Acre Site o 60% of the sIte left In one parcel MaxImum 3 parcels c " A II to A~(L ~ . .. \.' B II \\ ~ II ~. 2 Ac-(e-s L A~(e-~ c Parcel "A" - 6 acres Parcel "B" - 2 acres Parcel "C" - 2 acres Example of a 10 Acre Site 60% of the sIte left In one parcel C MaXImum 5 parcels VA ./ 10 Aue..~ Parcel "A" - 6 acres Parcel "B" - 1 acre Parcel "e" - 1 acre Parcel "D" - 1 acre Parcel "E" - 1 acre c \k B" 1 I\ue.- ~L' 1 !\dL- ,,, 0" 1 Aue- " E ,. i A.Uf-, c o o o Proposed C-3 Minimum lot size (through binding site plan) examples 70% of the site left in one parcel Development Minimum Max 3 parcels with/1 Max 5 parcels with/1 Area parcel size parcel at 700J'o parcel at 700J'o 10 Acres 7 acres One - 7 acres, Two - 1 5 One - 7 acres, Four - 75 acres acre 8 Acres 5 6 acres One - 5 6 acres, Two - 1 2 One - 5 6 acres, Four - 6 acres acre 6 Acres 4 2 acres One - 4.2 acres, Two - 9 One - 4.20 acres, Four- acre .22 acre 5 Acres 35 acres One - 3 5 acres, Two - 75 One - 3 5 acre, Four - 35 acre acre 3 Acres 2 1 acres One - 2 1 acres, Two - 45 One - 2 1 acres, Four - .22 acre acre 1 Acres 7 acre One - 7 acre, Two - 6534 One- 7 acre, Four - 3267 sq ft sq ft C.\OFFICE\ZONING\C3MINEX2. WPD o c o 70% ofthe sIte left III one parcel MaXImum 3 Parcels \.\ 6 '1 Example of a 10 Acre Site UA 'J 7 A eft- S }.5 Acfe-~ "" G" I, 5" A~(e-~ Parcel "A" - 7 acres Parcel "B" - 1.5 acres Parcel "C" - 1.5 acres Example of a 10 Acre Site c 70% of the sIte left III one parcel MaXImum 5 parcels c "A" 7 A c(~ <:> "'B" " C-" "'0 " ~E. .7~ l' .1/{ .1~ . Au~ ~cfe.- A.u ~ Ac.rc c Parcel "A" - 7 acres Parcel "B" - 75 acre Parcel "e" - 75 acre Parcel "D" - 75 acre Parcel "E" - 75 acre o o o Proposed C-3 Minimum lot size (through binding site plan) examples. 80% of the site left in one parcel Development Minimum Max 3 parcels with/1 Max 5 parcels with/1 Area parcel size parcel at 800/0 parcel at 800/0 1 0 Acres 8 acres One - 8 acres, Two - 1 acre One - 8 acres, Four - 5 acre 8 Acres 6 4 acres One - 6 4 acres, Two - 8 One - 6 4 acres, Four - 4 acre acre 6 Acres 4 8 acres One - 4 8 acres, Two - 6 One - 4 8 acres, Four - 3 acre acre 5 Acres 4 acres One - 4 acres, Two - 5 acre One - 4 acres, Four - 25 acre 3 Acres 2 4 acres One - 2 4 acres, Two - 3 One - 2 4 acres, Four- acre 4356 sq ft 1 Acres 8 acre One - 8 acre, Two - 4356 One - 8 acre, Four - 2178 sq ft sq ft C \OFFICE\ZONlNG\C3MlNEX2.WPD Example of a 10 acre Site o 80% of the sIte left III one parcel MaxImum 3 parcels c ~\A .1 B A ~(~:, \\ B /I \,\ C-'I 1 {\ ~(L- ~ ~U~ o Parcel "A" - 8 acres Parcel "B" - I acre Parcel "e" - I acre Example of a 10 Acre Site c 80% of the sIte left III one parcel MaXImum 5 parcels c IJ. A If 8 A~(L<) .... 1:)" '"' C-'1 ... D" " E. .f .5 4{.,(L. . 5' AUf- .5 Aut.- II 5 Ac-r e.- o Parcel "A" - 8 acre Parcel "B" - 5 acre Parcel "e" - 5 acre Parcel "D" - 5 acre Parcel "E" - 5 acre (\ ~ City of Yelm o c 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm. Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,19984'00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - August 17, 1998 - minutes enclosed 2. Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public hearings have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Public Hearing: Staff report enclosed Applicant: City of YelmlWarren Lasher Proposal Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Location Southwest corner of Bald Hills Road and Morris Road 4 Zoning Code Amendments: Worksession Worksession on Chapter 17.28, Large Lot Commercial Zone (C-3) Staff report enclosed 5 Other. 6 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 19,1998,4.00 PM * Recyckd papa ~- ----------._-~-~_._-- --~------ ----- c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 17,1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. 98-07 The meeting was called to order at 4.00 p m by Joe Huddleston Members present: Glenn Blando, Joe Huddleston, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, John Thomson. Guest(s) Glen Cunningham-City Council Liaison Staff. Cathie Carlson, Gibran Hashmi, Dana Spivey Members absent: Margaret Clapp, E.J Curry, Tom Gorman and Bob Isom Aooroval of Minutes. MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 18,1998. MOTION CARRIED Public Communications. There were none c Zonina Code Amendments. Work session' Work session on Chapter 17 28, Large Lot Commercial Zone (C-3) Cathie Carlson talked about the purpose of having the Work session, then gave the staff report. Roberta Lonamire asked where the other areas are located with larger parcels? Cathie stated there are a few C-1 areas towards the high school - Cathie then pointed out the areas on the large zoning map There was more discussion Roberta stated that she hates to see the C-1 areas get "chopped up" more, and we also need to think of the property owners. John Thomson asked Cathie to clarify a ten acre parcel, for example - if he owned a ten acre piece - zoned Commercial, could he subdivide it or is he forced right now to leave the ten acres as is? Cathie said yes it must stay as the full ten acres, but only in the C-3 zoned area Cathie then pointed out to the commission members exactly where the C-3 zoning is on the large map Rav Kent asked what was the intent for creating these suggestions? Cathie stated that there was a property owner who had a purchaser for one acre of their seven total acres, and the city was trying to figure out how they could accomodate this for them, yet still meet the intent of the code The property owner couldn't subdivide, but they could do the binding site plan. Currently, if this property owner came in and wanted to split the 7 acres into 14 half acre commercial tracts - they could, the city's code would have to allow it under a binding site plan John then asked if the city left the code and ordinance as is, couldn't property owners still come in and appeal to the planning commission and city council for a variance? Cathie answered that the city's variances have to be approved with the fact shown that the property owner would suffer a great hardship that other property owners in the same zone would not experience under the zoning code Few sites and/or circumstances can demonstrate that type of hardship There was more discussion Cathie went on to say that city staff would like some criteria and guidance from the planning commission on this Roberta asked if we can set a minimum on the size parcel which can be divided? There was discussion about different percentage scenarios. Rav Kent asked what would happen in the future, is this a one time thing? Cathie said yes this is a one time thing, and when a binding site plan is approved, the condition of "no more subdivision or reduction of parcel size" would go on the face of the map Cathie also stated Jhat on binding site plans - for each pad created to be a legal tax parcel to sell, the binding site plan and survey have to be recorded, so it would be recorded against that property, it would show up every time o Yelm Planning Commission August 17, 1998 Page 1 o c (" ~ Roberta stated that she would like to hear what Glenn Blando has to say since he is a current business owner in a C-3 zone Glenn Blando feels that we need to protect the C-3, and the area being discussed is not a large area, but is a good location for the "box retailers," plus improvements will be made to the Grove Road/Hwy 507 intersection - so this will benefit this area also Roberta then asked if the binding site plan can be deleted from the ordinance? Cathie said no Ravasked if adjacent property owners know about this? Cathie stated there are a few who know, but after some guidance from the planning commission, then the planning department will do a mailing to all involved Glen Cunninqham asked if all businesses which locate in the C-3 areas have to be "related types?" Cathie said the code doesn't specifically say that. There was more discussion Joe Huddleston asked if there were more comments or questions? Joe then stated that everyone seems to be leaning towards the last scenario/drawing in the staff report, (an example of a 9 acre site, 75% of the site as single parcel, no minimum lot size for remaining 25% of site) Glenn Blando agreed Cathie stated that Margaret Clapp and Tom Gorman had both given her their thoughts and comments over the phone, and both also were leaning towards the same scenario/drawing (the last one shown in staff report.) Joe asked Cathie what else she needed as far as guidance from the planning commission? Cathie stated that she will work on a couple different percentage scenarios, prepare some diagrams and bring it to the next planning commission meeting to review again Other: Plannina Commission work Droaram for the remainder of 1998- Cathie stated that the C-3 discussionlWork session will be continued at the Sept. 21 regular meeting At the October meeting Cathie hopes to discuss mobile home park standards Cathie then gave a brief update on current planning projects Meeting adjourned at 5 10 pm Respectfully submitted, gQ~{difeY~ Joe Huddleston, Co-Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission August 17, 1998 Page 2 o c c VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING: YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 17,1998 TIME. 4 00 PM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s): NAMF It AnnRF~~ GL-EtV CUIJ/lJlJ0GHAI'1 ' cSrDf"\l\-J I \-T~It~( MAiliNG II~T? I ~PFAKFR? .r" \.....J o c\ City of Yelm 105 Yelm AvenueWe$t PO Box479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date August 11, 1998 To. Yelm Planping Commission From: Cathie Carlson Re. Development/Lot Size in the 0-3,Zoning District BackQrourid The Yelm Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for three levels of coi1l1l1~rcial ca,tegories'to me'et community heeds, which are Neighborhood Service/Professional Office, General Re~iVCotnmercial Core, and a Commercial Service District. (rarger and more intensive cOmmercial uses, including auto and machine oriented, mOdulat'hou~ing, and rectf3a.tional sales, service, and repair.) In 1995, when the PlaliningCommiSsioh developed the zoning code to impleme'nt the Comprehensive Plan and. its land use designatio.ns, c-3 was identltied as the district that would best be ,suited to handle'the types of usesa~ described fortlie' Commercial Service District (larger and more intensive cotninercial u~es, ...) CharacteristicS such as larger parcels, future Y..2 and Y -S terminus and previoUs zoning guided the planning commission on the location of the 0-30istrict and its al,low~duses. \ ' In an area designated to accommoqate large uses, such as box rf3tajlers, the Planni,rig Commission felt it was important to retain larger parcels for future :development. With that thought, a minimum lot size of 10 acres was established. The minimum lot size did not preclude parcels under 10 acres from developing, it simply meant thatn,ew parcels under 10 acres could not Pe created throughsubdivisiQn of pro~rty. Issue Under the current zoning code parcel's-zoned 0-3 cannot be subdivided into parcels less than 10 acreS in size. For example a property owner would have to own a minimum of 20 acres to create 2 lots. All properljes under 20 ,acres co'uld not be.subdMded. ' ~ Under current binding site plan regulations a parcel under 10 acres' can create new parcels less than 10 acres. This is accOmplished by proposing' different uses on tracts or pads and identifying the impacts for the entire project site. There are 'no restrictions on- the size of new tracts/pads. Upon approval of the proposed development project, the propertyi>wner records the surveyalid the binding site plan which aUows for the tracts/pads to'besold as a legal totof record, It Is highly unlikely that aU the parcels i,n the 0-3 District will develop with a single user, therefore it is necessary to have the flexibility of tDe Binding Site Plan. However, the Binding Site Plan cbuld easily be used as a "loop holew In the code to create numerous sma~1 parcels. * Recycled paper c c c The enclosed information provides examples of different scenario's that would provide some criteria for the division of property through the Binding Site Plan, while meeting the Intent of the C-3 Zoning District. Also I have included an inventory of parcels zoned C-3, a. corresponding map and Chapter 17.28, Large Lot Commercial Zone (C"'3) with potential changes. Worksession The object of the Planning Commission worksesslon Is to review the enclosed examples and use them as a starting point for discussion. Following the meeting, staff will make revisions based on the discussion by, the Planning Commission. ~ o o C) Proposed C-3 Minimum lot size (through binding site plan) examples. Minimum Parcel Size - Five (5) percent of site: Development Minimum Maximum 3 Max 3 parcels Maximum 5 Max 5 parcels with/1 Area parcel new Parcels with/1 mimum new parcels mimum parcel size parcel 1 G Acres 5 acres 3.33 acre One - .5 acre, Two - 2 acre average One - .5 acre, Four - 2.38 average 4.75 acres acres 8 Acres 4 acres 2.67 acre One - 4 acre, Two - 3.8 1.6 acre One - 4 acre, Four - 1 9 average acres average acres 6 Acres 3 acres 2 acre average One - .3 acre, Two - 1.20 acre One - 3 acre, Four - 1 43 2.85 acres average acres 5 Acres .25 acres 1 67 acre One - .25 acre, Two - 1 acre average One - .25 acre, Four - 1 19 average 2.38 acres acres 3 Acres 6534 sq ft 1 acre average One - 6534 sq ft, Two - .6 acre average One - 6534 sq ft, Four - .72 1.43 acres acre 1 Acres 2178 sq ft 14,520 sq ft One - 2178 sq ft, Two - .2 acre average One - 2178 sq ft, Four- average .48 acre . 10,345 sq ft C:\OFFICE\ZONING\C3MINEXWPD o o o Proposed C-3 Minimum lot size (through binding site plan) examples Minimum Parcel Size - Ten (10) percent of site Development Minimum Maximum 3 Max 3 parcels Maximum 5 Max 5 parcels with/1 Area parcel new Parcels with/1 mimum new parcels mimum parcel size parcel 10 Acres 1 acres 3.33 acre average One - 1 acre, Two - 4.50 2 acre average One - 1 acre, Four - 2.25 acres acres 8 Acres .8 acres 2.67 acre average One - 8 acre, Two - 3 6 1.6 acre One - .8 acre, Four - 1 8 acres average acres 6 Acres 6 acres 2 acre average One - 6 acre, Two - 2.7 1.20 acre One - .6 acre, Four - 1.35 acres average acres 5 Acres 5 acres 1 67 acre average One - 5 acre, Two - 1 acre average One - .5 acre, Four - 1 13 2.25 acres acres 3 Acres 13,068 sq ft 1 acre average One - 13,068 sq ft, Two 6 acre average One - 13,0689 sq ft, Four- - 1.35 acres .66 acre 1 Acres 4356 sq ft 14,520 sq ft One - 4356 sq ft, Two - .2 acre average One - 4356 sq ft, Four- average 45 acre 9801 sqft , c:\omCE\ZONING\C3MINEX.WPD c c o Example of a 9 Acre Site Minimum Parcel Size - 5% of gross area. Maximum 3 Parcels , V LJ < ^ \l 5 I, v A'l 700 \ o-roJ Parcel "A" - .5 acre Parcel "B" - 2 acre Parcel"C" - 6.5 acre Example of a 9 Acre Site Minimum Parcel Size - 5% of gross area. Maximum 5 Parcels c c , ., " \'~/I 'E. 'J \\D I' "All "6" c Parcel "A" - .5 acre Parcel "B" - .5 acre Parcel "e" - 3 acre Parcel "D" - 3 acre Parcel "E" - 3 acre o 'iff) o o Example for a 9 Acre Site Minimum Parcel SIze - 10% of gross area. MaxImum 3 Parcels \f L'J I "A'l "5 '1 SCOI I Parcel "A" - .9 acre Parcel "B" - 9 acre Parcel"C" - 7.2 acre ~ o c o Example of a 9 Acre Site MInImUm Parcel SIze - 10% of gross area. MaXImum 5 Parcels 15 \'A II \. D/ ()' I'B 'I \I [ " \I~ 'I SDt) I Parcel "A" - I 8 acre Parcel "B" - I 8 acre Parcel "e" - I 8 acre Parcel "D" - I 8 acre Parcel "E" - I 8 acre o c o Example of a 9 Acre Site 60% of the site as single parcel No tmmmum lot size for remammg 40% of sIte. ~A JI . \IB4 \\ 1/ ~ . liD" lIE" "fll ~ Parcel "A" - 5 4 acre Parcel "B" - 1.5 acre Parcel "e" - 1 acre Parcel "D" - 1 0,000 sq ft Parcel "E" - 1 0,000 sq ft Parcel "F" - 1 0,000 sq ft Example of a 9 Acre Site 75% of the sIte as smgle parcel o No mmImum lot SIze for remammg 25% of sIte. o ~ A I , B11 'C.- II o Parcel "A" - 6 75cre Parcel "B" - 2 acre Parcel "e" - .25 acre f o o n t1 .; : ..... ",i ~- PARCEI.J$ INS~f)EC~l'tb~~rrS...ZONEI>..,tAR~t:U~..~.e~!~~F-CIAL (~..3J .... .. MAP PARCEL # PARCEL OWNER ADDRESS CURRENT USE # SIZE 1 64303400301 1 15 ac Dillenburg 10349 Grove Rd Personal resIdence 2 64303400300 5 77 ac Workmg 10403 Grove Rd. Personal resIdence 3 64303400601 5.26 ac Justman Agncultural 4 64303400600 5 ac Country Storage 10530 Grove Rd. Storage Busmess 5 64303100801 6.5 ac McKown 10502 Grove Rd. Used ApplIances 6 64303100800 2.4 ac Blando 16910 State Hwy 507 LumberIHardware Store 7 64303100900 8.59 ac Jolley 16930 State Hwy 507 Personal reSIdence 8 64303101000 8.59 ac Flood 17020 State Hwy 507 Cattleman Restaurant and LIvestock yard 9 64303101100 463 ac Klotzner Trust 17122 State Hwy 507 Personal reSIdence 10 64303101101 3 7 ac Flood 17124 State Hwy 507 FarmlPersonal reSIdence 11 64303200701 41 ac Hassan 16507 State Hwy 507 Arco AM/PM 11 64303200702 10 ac Hassan 16507 State Hwy 507 Arco AM/PM 11 64303200703 12 ac Hassan 16507 State Hwy 507 Arco AM/PM . ... ., .. .. PARCELS OUTSIDE CITY LIl\fITS- DESIGNAl1:eO'AS'LARGEl1()TCOMMERCIAL (C-3) tJp()N ANNEXA 1'1<:>N MAP PARCEL # PARCEL OWNER ADDRESS CURRENT USE # SIZE 12 64303200704 72 ac Hull 16533 State Hwy 507 Feed Store 13 64303200705 .5 ac Neilsen 16601 State Hwy 507 Yelm Glass 14 64303200700 6 75 ac Hull 10616 Bald Hill Rd Feed Store ,... ........ ...n .... .... ... PARCELS()T.Jl1SID~ CITY LlMITS - DJtSI~NA~~'..~SLAA~$.L~l1 (~()MMERCIAE(C~3)lillI'()N ANNEXATl0N' . MAP PARCEL # PARCEL OWNER ADDRESS CURRENT USE # SIZE 15 64303200600 9.37 ac Justman Agncultural 16 22729310500 4.55 ac Yelm Telephone Telephone Co Yard 17 22729310400 3 48 ac Justman Farm Land 18 64303200501 9.21 ac Phill Vacant land 19 64303200500 4 49 ac Baker 16901 State Hwy 507 Personal resIdence 20 64303200400 5.34 ac Baker Personal resIdence 21 64303200300 9.33 ac Laharjo Poultry 17041 State Hwy 507 ChIcken Farm o o o "', "l # _ ~__--_/-- _~-~--/----~- /_~-/c--r --,----- - ~~ -- ~ ~-- c ~----------- r- r- r -r.7;":9?i-. .~~ '.. '.. ~. ..... -<.,n..!'. -" - -. .- ,C} o o o ... Chapter 17.28 LARGE LOT COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3) Sections: 17.28010 17.28020 17.28030 17.28040 17.28050 1728060 17.28070 17.28080 17.28082 17.28085 17.28090 17.28 100 17.28 110 Intent Permitted uses Prohibited uses Environmental performance standards Site area Building location Minimum flOOI area Height Ingress and egress Off-street parking Parking area and circulation design Landscaping Stormwater runoff 17.28.010 Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to A. Provide for the location of the facilities and services needed by the traveling public, B Permit commercial uses and activities which depend more heavily on convenient vehicular access than pedestrian access, C Limit location to sites having safe and efficient access to major transportation routes, o Identify the types of commercial uses appropnate or acceptable in the large lot commercial zone, E. Provide development gUIdelines to enhance the efficient operation of these districts, and to achieve minimum adverse impact on the community as a whole, especially on adjacent properties having different land use characteristics 17.28.020 Permitted uses. A. SpecIfic types of uses permitted in this district are those commercial actIvities that are permitted outright in the commercIal zone (C-l) and the heavy commercial zone (C-2) B Similar or related uses permitted and criteria for determinatIOn of similarity or relatedness, as follows 1 Uses similar to, or related to, those listed in subsection 17.28 020(A) are permitted upon a finding of the approval authority and/or the SIte plan review committee that a particular unlisted use does not conflict with the intent of this chapter or the policies of the Yelm development plan, 2 The criteria for such finding of similarity shall include, but not be limited to, the followmg a. That the proposed use is appropriate in this district, b That the development guidelines for permitted uses can be met by the proposed use, c That the public need is served by the proposed use C Special uses may be permItted as provided for in Chapter 17 66 of this title o On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities as an accessory use to any activity generating hazardous waste and lawfully allowed in this zone, provIded that such facilities meet the state siting CrItena adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 70 105 210 17.28.030 Prohibited uses. Uses other than those identified or described in Section 17.28 020 of this el 171-1 chapter are prohibited, including but not limited to A Auto wreckmg yards including junk, scrap metal and other material salvage operations mcluding recycling centers, B Storage of explosives or materials of such character or in such quantities as to constitute a significantly greater hazard to persons, property or environmental health than that posted by materials commonly used or stored m the ordinary retail and service establishments permitted in this district. 17.28.040 Environmental performance standards. A. It shall be the responsibility of the operator and/or the propnetor of any permitted use to provide such evidence and technical data as the approval authority may require to demonstrate that the use or activity is or will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards of Chapter 17 57 of this title Failure of the approval authority to require such mformatlOn shall not be construed as relIeving the operator and/or the propnetor from complIance with the environmental performance 'standards of thIS title 17.28.050 Site area. Minimum SIze of any parcel to be,m\1]ivide<l-developed in this dIStrict shall be 10 acres i~inilmim;size OF/ian';' areelrto be~ereated))'mrou fi"iOiildin ~ite'i':'lamRnall. re~<resentl)nffilessl;m....',........~..........an ,,'x"_. ._*,,"@@; ..",y. l'L_.#,@"" ._.".##.",..",_;;.. g,,-, "",.. g_,_.I~ ",','"",.<,<._,. .,11..,_ ....,...,- ._#., ten'J/IO\il!t'i'"TceilDofiJme iGevelo . ment!jare~ "".","" ,'l.J~~"".. ""'"< >>"" .,_".. n",.", """;'" .", 17.28.060 Building location. LocatIon of buildings or structures on site, if adjacent parcels are in the same zonmg distnct or in another commercial or industrial distnct, shall be as follows A. Setbacks from side property lines fifteen feet; B Setbacks from rear property lines fifteen feet; C Setbacks from front property lInes fifteen feet. rr.28-;Mo-Minimum floor-area;-Minimum 100,000 square feet-of-gross-floorea-per-strocture 17.28.080 Height. MaxImum heIght of buildings shall be fifty-five feet. 17.28.00 Ingress and egress. Ingress and egress at the site shall be limited to one dnveway for each two hundred feet of frontage Where only one driveway serves a site, said driveway shall not be less than twenty-five feet nor more than thirty-six feet wide All driveways shall be not less than one hundred fifty feet from intersecting right-of-way lines, measured from the centerline of the driveway Curbs and gutters or permanently fixed bollards shall be provIded to limIt other vehicular access to the SIte 17.28.085 Off-street parking. A The provisions of Chapter 17 72 shall apply B The mimmum parkmg requirements specified in this section may be adjusted in the site plan review process under the following conditions when in their opinion an adjustment will be in accord with the purposes of this code, and will not create an adverse Impact on existing or potential uses adjoming the subject property, or in the general vicinity of the subject property The following factors shall be considered in the determination of such impacts and such adjustments 1 Two or more uses may share a parking area or garage if. a. The total number of parkmg spaces provided is at least equal to the sum of the mmimum number of spaces required for each use, or b The uses are operating during different hours and the number of parking spaces is at least equal to the mmimum number of spaces required for all uses operating at the same time, and no greater than the maXImum number of spaces permitted for all uses operatmg at the same time 2 Where adJoinmg parkmg facilities of two or more ownerships are developed and designed as one parking facilIty, a reduction of up to fifteen percent of the total 171-2 .. D'.. o o o ..<}. A o c c combined required parking spaces may be permitted. 3 The continuation of joint or shared facilities shall be assured by a sufficient legal document such as a covenant or reciprocal easement agreement or recorded covenant on the approved site plan or by participation in a local improvement district. Alternative programs that may be considered by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee under this section include, but are not limited to the following a. Private vanpool operation, b Transit/vanpool fare subsidy; c. Imposition and maintenance of a charge for parking; d. Provision of subscription bus services, e. Flexible work hour schedule, f Capital improvements for transit services, g. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, h. Participation in the ride-matching program, 1. Reduction of parking fees for carpools and vanpools; J Establishment of a transportation coordinator position to implement carpool, vanpool and transit programs; k. Bicycle parking facilities. C. Off-street parking requirements for uses similar or related to, or any use not specifically listed in the Yelm Development Guidelines, Section 4, Transportation, Table 1, shall be determined by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee after consultation with the director of public works on the basis of the requirement for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created for similar or related uses in Yelm, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate for the establishment of minimum and maximum parking requirements. D Parking spaces may be designed and constructed for up to twenty-five percent of the required number for compact size cars An applicant must clearly identify all spaces designed and constructed for compact car use The approval authority and/or site plan review committee may approve the' design and designation of more than twenty-five percent of the spaces for use by compact cars if the applicant demonstrates that no adverse impact will result. E. Parking areas or garages shall be designed to provide for off-street vehicle circulation to adjoining property and parking areas where physically feasible, except that driveways and parking aisles should not cross pedestrian linkages in C-3 land use districts. F. Convenient, marked pedestrian access shall be provided from parking areas to pedestrian linkage systems and from parking areas to principal uses G An owner/developer may install the required parking spaces in phases if a phased schedule has been approved by the approval authority and/or site plan review committee This schedule must specifically indicate when the minimum parking requirements of Section 17.24.140 will be provided. The approval authority and/or site plan review committee may permit the use of temporary parking areas with appropriate screening as part of a phasing schedule In addition, the approval authority and/or site plan review committee may require a performance assurance device to insure conformance with the requirements and intent of Section 17.24!140 17.28.90 Parking area and circulation design. A. The city public works department or approval authority shall have the authority to fix the location, width and manner of approach of vehicular ingress or egress from a building or parking area to a public street and to alter existing ingress and egress as may be required to control street traffic in the interest of public safety and general welfare 171-3 Internal circulation of the lot shall be so designed as to minimize in-and-out driving time, idling time and time spent looking for a parking space. When off-street parking is provided in the rear of a building and a driveway or lane alongside the building provides access to the rear parking area, such driveway or lane shall be a minimum width of twenty feet with a three-foot minimum width sidewalk adjoining the building and curbed or raised six inches above the driveway surface D Parking areas shall include landscaping as required by this chapter or by Chapter 17 80 17.28.100 Landscaping. A. Landscaping shall be provided according to Chapter 17 80 and the provisions of this Section 17.28 100 are supplemental thereto Parcels or lots which share a common boundary with properties in a residential or open space/institutional district shall, in addition to the rear or side setbacks required in Section 17.28 060, provide a ten-foot strip for landscaping along said common boundary Refuse 1 B C B C Refuse'con~iner screening shall be required and be of a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of the associated structure, shall be at least as high as the refuse container, and shall in no case be less than six feet high. No refuse container shaUbe permitted between a street and the front of a building Refuse collection areas shall be designed to contain all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections. Deposited refuse shall not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure 17~28.1l0 Stornlwater runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retained, treated and disposed of on site or disposed of in a system designed for such runoff and which does not flood or damage adjacent properties. Systems designed for runoff retention and control shall comply with specifications provided by the city and shall be subject to its review and approval, and shall, moreover, comply with Chapter 5 of the Yelm Development Guidelines, Drainage Design and Erosion Control Standards for the City of Yelm. 2. 3. 171-4 f:. .D... o o o ~~ - \..J c c City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 17,1998 4:00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1. Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - May 18,1998 - minutes enclosed 2. Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public hearings have been held or for which are ~nticipated ) 3 Zoning Code Amendments: WorksessiQn _Workse$sion on Chapter 17.28, Large Lot Commercial Zone (C-3) Staff report enclos~d. 4 Other' Planning Commission work program for the remainder of 1998. Update on current projects. 5 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelrn CityHall, atJ458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, SEPT. 21, 1998,4:00 PM . RecyclelJ paper c c o . CitY of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm; Washingto{1 98.597 (360) 458-3244 PUBLIC NOTICE The Julv 20. 1998 'Reqular Planninq Commission meetinq has ;beenCANCELLED The . . ~ f ." . - 'i- \ next regular meeting of the Y elm ,~Ianning Comm,ission will be held in Council Chambers at YelmClty Hall, 105 Yetm Ave W , on Monday, August 15,1998 at 4:,00 ,pm. , If th~rea~e any questions concerning th,is cha~ge,please call th!3 City ~Ipnner, Cathie Carlson at (360)458-8408 Agne$ P Bennick City Clerk/Treasurer 'i' L {1 c @- Recycled paper o PUBLIC NOTICE The June 15. 1998 Reqular Planninq Commission meetinq has been CANCELLED The next regular meeting of the Yelm Planning Commission will be held in Council Chambers at Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W ,on Monday, July 20, 1998 at 4:00 pm. If there are any questions concerning this change, please call the City Planner, Cathie ci1~n at (360)45~-8408 o U\fi~ yJ~ ~L- Ag~s P BennicK City Clerk/Treasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE published in the Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, June 11, 1998 fv1ailed to the Planning Commission mailing list, June 10, 1998 posted at Yelm City Hall, Court and Yelm Library, June 10, 1998 o c c o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18,1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Joe Huddleston, Co-Chair Members present. Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, John Thomson Guests Glen Cunningham-City Council Liaison, John Thompson Staff" Cathie Carlson, Drew Felmley, Gibran Hashmi, Dana Spivey Members absent: Tom Gorman Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as read Public Communications' Cathie Carlson introduced the City's newest employee's - Drew Felmley, Building Official and Gibran Hashmi, Assistant City Planner Public Hearing Applicant: City of Yelm, Proposal Amendment to the City Sign Code to allow off-site banners for community events Joe Huddleston opened the public hearing at 4 03 pm Joe then asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Joe asked if any member of the Planning Commission had received any information prior to the hearing? None Joe called for the staff report. Cathie Carlson gave the staff report. Marqaret Clapp asked Cathie if the Community Event Banners will cause problems from a management point of view, as far as scheduling etc? Cathie said no John Thompson stated from a business owners stand point, would businesses be able to put their name on the event banner - (i e "Sponsored by Coca Cola, or Jack's Grocery" etc.)? Cathie stated that it is the discretion of the Planning Commission today, if a percentage of the overall event banner can be used for sponsor's names Mr. Thompson commented on the pole spec's, he stated he has been working with the City of Lacey, the banner size may change depending on the size of the Right-of-Way Yelm Planning Commission May 18,1998 Page 1 o There was more discussion Joe Huddleston asked if there are multiple sponsor's of an event, do they all get equal amount of space on the banner? Marqaret Clapp said she thinks the allotted amount of space for sponsor names, (i e 10%) would have to be divided between the sponsors John Thomson asked if Olympia and Lacey address "sponsor's" in their ordinances? Cathie stated Olympia does not, and she will find out if Lacey's does or not. Joe Huddleston asked for clarification on the signage dimensions of the proposed banners Cathie stated the actual banner/signage size would be 30' long, and you would have the guide wires attached Bob Isom stated that he feels that if the amount of space for sponsor's names is restricted to a certain amount, there is not going to be any incentive for companies or corporate sponsor's to help out with the community events Rav Kent feels that it would not be good to have mostly corporate sponsors/company names on the banner, and then a small space for the event (i e "Prairie Days" etc ) - the purpose of the allowance of the banners is to help publicize the community events, it seems that 10% of the banner for sponsor names is quite adequate Cathie agreed, and stated that 10% would be about 10 sq ft. There was more discussion o Marqaret Clapp proposed an amendment to the original amendment, to state that the maximum allowance for sponsors and/or corporate names shall be 10% of total sign/banner Cathie stated that this verbage could be added to #8 of the original amendment. E.J. Curry agreed with Margaret's proposal to amend the original amendment. There was more discussion Bob Isom asked if the problem before was the issue of the banner content? Cathie said no, the objective of this amendment is to make sure there are proper installation procedures for the purpose of complete safety Bob Isom then asked who has approval authority to decide what will be permitted as far as content! language on the banners? Cathie stated the proposed banners' content would have to be reviewed to make sure there isn't a religious or political message and that the banner was in fact advertising a "community event." 98-05 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY MARGARET CLAPP TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT SECTION 15.24.195 OF TO THE SIGN CODE CHAPTER 15.24, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE IN PARAGRAPH #8 THAT SPONSORS/CORPORAlE NAMES/UNDERWRITERS WILL BE ALLOWED 10% SPACE ON THE TOTAL BANNER. MOTION CARRIED. o Yelm Planning Commission May 18 1998 Page 2 c' c c Roberta Lonqmire asked about the air hole requirements in the banners? There was discussion Bob Isom asked about the poles, are they on city right-of-way? Cathie said yes Roberta stated she feels that the non-profit organizations should all have to pay an amount towards the cost of the poles There was more discussion Drew Felmlev stated that there will need to be some engineering work done on the poles 98-06 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY E.J CURRY, TO AMEND MOTION #98-05, TO HAVE STAFF INCORPORATE IN SECTION 15.24195(9) "AIRHOLE SPACING" REQUIREMENTS BASED ON INDUSTRY STANDARDS MOTION CARRIED. Cathie then asked if she could make the suggested changes and take the amended amendment to City Council for their review? The Planning Commission said yes Cathie reviewed correspondence with PC members, and stated that she doesn't think there will be anything for the next Planning Commission meeting agenda - scheduled for June 15, so the next regular meeting will be Monday, July 20, 1998 - 4 OOpm Meeting adjourned at 4 35 pm Respectfully submitted, Joe Huddleston, Co-Chair Date Yelrn Planning Commission May 18,1998 Page 3 0, City of Yelm r c c ,- r05,Yelm Avenue W~st PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 45~-3~44 c Date May 12, 1998 To Yelril Planning Commission c From Cathie Carlson, .Cityplanner Re ' , Public Hearing r.egarding an amendment to/City Sign Code to allow .off-site banners for community events ' , LIST OF EXHfBITs: E,xhibiti - Public Notice Exhibit II - Section 15.24 195, off.,.Site Banners ., A. Public HearinaObiective. After consideration'ofthe facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions request additional inforn'lati6n from the city staff, continue the public hear!ng or make a recommefldation of action to the CitY-Council , , 'B.. Proposal. An amendment tathe Sign CQd~j Chapter 15.24, to include provisions for off-site banners B~nl!ers are str,ictly limited toadv'er1:ising of community events organized by non..;profjt organizations. The new section allows up to three locationS in which banners can be,displayed for "no ms>re than tw'o ~eeks aha restricts the banner size to a maximum of 30' by 3 Y:t , C. Backaround.' Mayor Wolf formed a Planning 'Commission sub.,committee to review the sign ,code inge'leral and to respohd to concerns raised' by the 'public relating to off-site signs, sign sizes, banners 'andsi?ndvyichboards Tt)esub-committee revi~wedthecode and developed som,e'amendmentsPrior.to bringing the proposed amehdments back to the full Planning Commission,. the sub-committee recommended that. a, sign code inventory I;>e conducted An intern is conducting an ,inventory and should have-it completed by July Upon cO,mpletlon thesub.-committee will' review the section regarding non- conforming signs inperspecii~e with the-sign ihventory' Originally the sub-committee plcmned on brillQing an entire amendmeht package to the fulF Planning Comni\ss\on for'consideration HoweVer, If the Planni~gCommissiorl'and the City Council' agree to allo~ off-site banners fqr community everlts iUs timely to process t!lis sirlgle amendment'priorto the summer festivals, The remaining amendments will be brought to the Planning Commission after the sub-committee has reviewed the non-conforil)ing sign s~ction of the code . , D. I Findinas. 1 Proponent. City of Yelm, 2 , Public'Notlce ~o~ice of the Public Hearing,waspublished ih the.NisqLJally Valley News on May?, 1'9~~, and posted in public areas on Febr'Liary 4, 1998 , , E. Staff Recommendatiori. Staffrecommerids amending Chapter 15.24, Sign Code to include Section15,24195 @- 1W:yc1ed paper CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT I PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN CODE AMENDMENT [~ J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: PURPOSE: Monday, May 18, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing to receive comments on amendments to the Sign Code. APPLICANT: Clty of Ye1m The Ye1m P1anmng CommissIOn wlll hold a public hearing for amendments to the Slgn Code regarding banners for commumty events. Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the amendments, received by the close ofthe public hearing on May 18, 1998. Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. Any related documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the City of Ye1m, 105 Ye1m Ave W., Ye1m WA. For additIOnal mformation, please contact Cathle Carlson at 458-8408 The City of Yelm provldes reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need special accommodations to attend or partlclpate, call the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meetmg. ,~ '~ ArrEST Clty of Ye1m /J I DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News. Thursday, May 7, 1998 Posted m Pubhc Areas. Wednesday, May 6, 1998 Mal1ed to Adjacent Property Owners n/a I~ J Date: May 18,1998 CITY OF YELM I=XHIBIT II Page 1 SECTION 15.24.195 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT ~ 15.24.195 Off-SIte Banners. ThIS procedural statement outlmes the gUIdelmes for the use \....J and coordmatIOn of banner cables for non-profit orgamzatIon event advertIsmg. Banner locatIons shall be utilIzed for the purpose ofhangmg banners advertIsmg non-profit commumty events desIgned for the general publIc mterest. 1 Banner mstallatIons shall be allowed at three (3) desIgnated publIc areas as approved by the CIty 2. Wntten requests for the use of the banner locatIOns shall be submItted to the PublIc Works Department, usmg the attached form. The request shall mclude pertment mformatIOn such as the nature of the event bemg advertIsed, the length of tIme the banner IS to be hung, a descnptIon ofthe banner, who will mstall the banner, a contact person responsible for the banner and phone number of that person m case of emergency, etc. 3 Banners shall be used to advertIse commumty mterest events, and not for the advertlSlng of the orgamzatIOn or ItS products. No requests shall be approved for banners advertlSlng the followmg type of events A) RelIgIOus events B) PolItIcal events C) CommercIal product sales or events f\ o 4 Schedulmg for mstallatIon of banners shall be on a first corne, first serve, basIs. ApplIcants are lImIted to four (4) events per year Requests must be receIved three weeks pnor to the date the banners WIll be mstalled. No banner WIll be scheduled wIthout a wntten request. The banners shall be hung for a maXImum time oftwo (2) weeks. The tIme lImIt shall begm on a Monday and end at the tIme the banner IS removed on a Monday Shorter pen ods of one week WIll be allowed wIth the same begInnmg and endmg days. 5 PublIc Works staffwtll schedule the banner for the requested tIme provIdmg there has not been pnor wntten applIcatIon for the same date. If pnor applIcatIOn has been made, staff will notIfy the new applIcant of the pnor approval no later than seven workmg days of receIvmg thelf request. 6 InstallatIOn and removal of the banners shall be the sole responsibIlIty of the applIcant. Arrangements by the applIcant must be made for the mstallatIOn and removal of the banner wIth one of the followmg approved sources A) Puget Sound Energy B) T C.!. CablevIsIOn C) Others as approved by PublIc Works Department. 7 It IS recommended that applIcants coordmate mstallatIon and removal of theIr banner wIth that of other applIcants, for ease of mstallatIon and removal by the mstaller ~ 8 Banners shall be 24 to 30 feet m wIdth (maxImum SIze 30 feet) and 3 11 feet m o heIght for all locatIons and shall have the approved message on both sIdes of the banner Date: May 18,1998 CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT II page 2 SECTION 15.24.195 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT \ 9 Grommets must be placed along the top edges of the banner and one at each (J bottom end. The mInImUm grommet SIze shall be 12 mch (msIde measurement) and the grommets shall be placed a maXImum of 2 feet apart. Au holes must be placed m the banner (mInImUm SIze of air holes should be comparable to the dIameter of a 3 pound coffee can or mInImUm 6 mches m dIameter) 10 Mountmg hardware shall be supplIed by the applIcant. ThIS wIll mclude a mmImum of a 5/16 mch lInk or comparable for each grommet, plus two (2) nylon type cords of adequate length for both bottom ends, for use as tIe downs. 11 Use of the banner cables IS subject to avaIlabIlIty of banner cables, aVailabIlIty of an approved mstaller and condItIon of banner cables. If weather condItIons pose a danger to mstallatIOn personnel, banners WIll not be hung untIl It IS safe to do so 12 If the request IS approved, the applIcant should take the banner (mcludmg all hardware) to the mstaller a mInImUm of three days pnor to mstallatIon or by the schedule agreed upon by that mstaller 13 City staff may request that the applIcant repair or remove theIr banner at any tIme that the banner may pose a danger to publIc safety due to banner detenoratIon, storms, hIgh wmds, etc. If the applIcant falls to respond to such a request wIthm 5 days, staff shall remove the banner or cause It to be removed, and will bIll the organIZatIOn for the cost of removal. \ (J (\ J Date: May 18, 1998 CITY OF YELM EXHIBIT II SECTION 15.24.195 age 3 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT (~ I~~ OfTHfI,~~1 CITY OF YELM OFFICIAL USE ONLY J Public Works Dept. Fee I~~JJ PO Box 479 Date Received Yelm WA 98597 By ~, ....'................ 360-458-3244 PW Director YELM WASHINGTON APPLICATION FOR USE OF BANNER CABLES NAME OF ORGANIZATION ADDRESS Purpose of Organization CONTACT PERSON PHONE NUMBER Emergency Phone Nature of Event \ 'J Date(s) of Event Requested Dates to use Banner Cables (maximum two weeks) Description of Banner (size, color, wording, etc.) Desired Banner Location Name of Banner Installer Installation Contact Person Phone Number Day Evening I have revIewed the CIty'S Banner Pohcy and understand the restnctlOns and condItIons placed on the use of the banner cables. Name TItle \ 'J CITY OF YELM ds\c:\office\plandept.cc\apps\banner.app Date: May 18, 1998 CITY OF YELM RECAP c Tburston Regional Planning Council Meeting, l\tarch 6, 1998 The Regional CoullcIl: 1 Approved the City of Yelm I s request to combine the study of SR-S07 and SR-Sl0 bypasses1 using the Surface Transportation Program funds awarded by TRPC in 1993. The projects are intended to address congestion problems III Yelm, and are in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan. c 2 Discussed the upcoming F..conomic Assessment. The work will be conducted by consultant Robert Chase TRPC staff Shanna Stevenson is tbe project manager. A Project Work Group will oversee the project and review progress. Rcgional Coullcil members Mark Foutch and Nancy Peterson will be joined in that group by a representative each from the Economic Dcvelopment Council, Port of Olympia, Private Industry Council, The Olympian newspaper, the League of Women Voters and the Master Builders A Technical Team will support the consultant with data, expertise and local knowledge. Staff will be joined in that group by economists from St. Maltin's College, The Evergreen State College, and WasWngton State Employment Security. A copy qf the SCQ_lJ8 oj Work is attacll8{l. In Worksession, discussed examining bow new capacity in the road system is paid. This is a next step in pursuing the new transportation revenues proposed in the recently~adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), III their transmittal of the RTP to the Regional Council for adoption, the Transportation Policy Board (fPB) recommended TRPC facilitate discussion that willlldetcrmine t11e 'appropriate' contribution growth should be making to new capacity in the transportation system " The TPB believed this to be necessary before the public would likely vote for increased local gas taxes, or support a new vehicle license fee. 3. While transit, travel demand management and alternative mode travel all are part of the transp0l1ation mix, this project will focus 011 how new road capacity is paid. Council members identified tile following issues of interest in this project: · Learning how past road capacity projects were planned to be funded, and actually funded; · RelatIng new road capacity to growth, and distinguishing between fixing deficiencies and providing new capacity, · Understanding how impact fees and other traffic impact mitigation payment systems work, what the choices are, and how these affect others (such as school districts); · Considering how funding might work similar to a utility (i.e., growth buying into the system; everyone paying on-gOing user fees); o · Considering how a transportation benefit district might apply; and . Addressing funding needs created by pass-through traffic (e g., with grants). The Regional Council will oversee this project and involve tlle TPB at key points in the process. The next step is to review a scope of work, tlmeline and budget for the project. o c c FROM THURSTON REG PLNG CNCL TO Yelm City Hall MAY 4, 1998 1 14PM ~132 P 02 RECAP Thurston RegionallJlannillg Council Meeting, 1\1a)' 1, ] 998 Rcgarding transportation, the RegIonal Counul 1 R(~vjcwed recently pas&ed legislation un 1487 - The state wjlJ desIgnate facilities of statewide significance, and set "level!-.- of-servIce" for them These will be "essentIal public facilities" which cannot he precluded by local government Rt:giona 1 Transportation Planning OrgamzatlOlls are to review local level-of-servIce methodologies to promote consistent evaluation of transportation facilitles and corddors And, RTPOs are to work with other agencies to devcJop level of service standards or alternative performance measures These RTPO tasks arc largely being performed hy TRPC already Essn 6456 - A CItizens Panel of Tnmsportation Beneficiaries will be appoll1tcd to analyze statewide transportation needs and funding mechanisms by December 1, 2000. RTPOs will be represented, along WJth citlcs, eountlCs, ports, other transportatIon jntcre~t!-. and the legislature ESHH - 2615 ~ A Freight Mohilit)' Stmtcgk Investment Board will be appointed to rank proposed freIght moblIity projects for slate funding The first 55 % of freight program funds wm go to the hlghe,lo,l ranked projects The remaining must be allocated among Central Puget sound, Eastern Washmgtoll, and Western Washington (including Thurston County) 2 Endorsed a proposal hy the Washmgton Transportation Commission to work wIth Regiol1dl TransportatIOn Planning Organizations to update the Washington TnmpoJ'tation PIau. In Worksession, The Regional CouncIl 1 Discussed the work underway to assess Thurston County's economy Councllmembers emphasm;d that assl11'nptions used Jl1 forecastmg must be made L'xplit it to the Project Work. Group and the Regional Council The project wIll bc completed by July. 2 Provided feedback on a prehmmary scope of work for reglOn-wlde transportation finance dnalysis Members want to focus on paying for new syst.em capacity, partlClllarly development's share. The values, pnnciples and POhCICS of the RegIOnal Transportation Plan are thc backdrop for consl(jering these Issues A scope of work, tllnelll1C' and hudget will be brought to the Regional Council in June for actIon 3 ARrr,cd on June 11, from I :()() p.m. to 5:00 1).Ill., as the date and time for this year's Council/staff' worksession. A speaker will focus on enlivening and enhanclllg democratic processes through commumcation approaches and new technology 01111 o o o VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING- YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. MAY 18,1998 TIME: 4 00 PM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s) *Public Hearing - Amendment to the City Sign Code to allow off-site banners for community events NAMF It AnnRFSS G L!3/J Cu IJ N / IJ C; ~f} /11 MAli IN~ liST? I SPFAKFIR? c',.. .(\ , v G City of Yelm.. 105 YelmAvel1~e West p 0 Bo~ 479 Yelm, Washington 9~597 (360) 458'-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM pLANNING COMMISSION , MONDAY, 'MAY 18, 19984' 00 P.M. YE~M CITY HALL.COUNqILCHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 11nttoduction of ' neW Planning Gommi~sion Me'mber o , 2 Call to Ord~r, RolI'Call, Approval of lVIinutes - March 16; 1998- minutes' enclosed ., 3Pl,Iblic Communications _ (Not as~opiated with measures of topics f(}r which public hearings have,been held or for , ,!,hich are anticipated J " - ' . 4 Public Hearing. Applicant: City of Yelm _ . proposal A.menqment to the City' ~ign Coqe t6 allow off-site banners for community events' Staff report enclosed " 5 Other" / Correspondence - Thurston Regional, Planning Council RECAPJor March 6 and MCiY 1, 1998, meeting , . 6.. Adjourn - Enclosures are available"to non-C6mlT,lission members upon 'request. If you n~edspecial arrangements to attend, or participate in this. meeting, please contact Yelm , ,CityHall, at 458~3?44 . ,NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, JUL Y26, 19~8, 4 00 PM '@ . 'Recycled paper (-~~ PUBLIC NOTICE The April 20. 1998 Reaular Plannina Commission meetina has been CANCELLED The next regular meeting of the Yelm Planning Commission will be held in Council Chambers at Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W , on Monday, May 18,1998 at 4 pm. If there are any questions concerning this change, please call the City Planner, Cathie C C7n a;:;58-ll408 A~ Bennic~ City ClerklTreasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, April 16, 1998 Mailed to the Planning Commission mailing list, April 15, 1998 Posted at Yelm City Hall, Court and Yelm Library, April 15, 1998 c c c c Motion No. 98-03 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, Tom Gorman, Roberta Longmire, John Thomson Staff: Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: E J Curry, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17,1998. MOTION CARRIED. Tom Gorman introduced and welcomed new Planning Commission member John Thomson John will take Ed Pitts' place, Ed resigned last month Public Communications None Public Hearina: Gramor Development N W , Inc., Location-Nisqually Plaza Mall, Proposal Variance from side yard setbacks Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 405 pm Tom then asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Tom asked if any member of the Planning Commission had received any information prior to the hearing? None Tom called for a staff report. Cathie Carlson gave the staff report. Cathie stated that the main concern of staff is that the buildings were constructed with the minimum building code requirements for zero lot lines and fire wall separations - the applicant has sent the as-builts for those buildings, the building dept. has reviewed everything and the buildings do meet all the fire codes Cathie stated that staff recommends Planning Commission's approval and a motion to forward to the City Council for final action Marqaret Clapp asked if there is any reason why we wouldn't want the applicant to do this? Cathie said no, the main reason for the variance application is for accounting purposes - so the applicant can assess taxes more appropriately etc Yelm Planning Commission March 16 1998 Page 1 c c c Roberta LonQmire asked if a new development would be allowed to have zero lot lines? Cathie said yes, under the binding site plan process with the overlay of a mixed use development - but it is the decision of the city council because those are individual cases Cathie also stated that the Nisqually Plaza development is not out of characteristic of what a commercial development is and looks like Cathie added that now as new projects come in she tells them up front "if you think you may want to separate part of your commercial building at a later date and have it for different taxing purposes or sell it etc, lets do a binding site plan at the beginning," so the applicant has the flexibility and they don't have to come back later to the Planning Commission Tom Gorman inquired about common walls between the buildings? Cathie said they do not share common walls John Thomson asked if the buildings share a common roof? Cathie said no There were no further questions or comments Tom closed the public hearing at 4 10 pm 98-04 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE VARIANCE- PROJECT #VAR-988217-YL, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SECTION C. MOTION CARRIED. Other: Cathie stated that Ordinance No's 617 & 618 and the other copies of the Articles from Nation's Building News, 2/9/98 were FYI documents for the PC members Meeting adjourned at 4 15 pm Respectfully submitted, Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission March 16,1998 Page 2 c City of Yelm c c 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date March 11, 1998 To Yelm Planning. ~o'Jmission From Cathie Carlso~y Planner Re Case No V AR-988217 - YL LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit I - Public Notice , Exhibit II - Applicant's Summary of Request Exhibit III - Vicinity Map A,Public Hearina Obiective: The Planning CommissiQn must ~etermine if the application for a variance 'permit- is consistent with the applicable City of Yelm Municipal Code(s) After consideration of tnefacts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions: request additional information from, the applicant and/or staff, continue the public hearing or make a recommendation of action to the City Council. B. Proposal: The applicant has applied for a variance permit. The request before the Planning Commission is to allow zero lot lines for side yards so that the applicant can ~ubdivide the parcel into seven lots, The actual sl!bdiviSion of the property is an administrative process and is not before the Planning Commission fOf'consideration C. Findinas. '- 1 Proponent. Gramor Development N W , Inc. 2 Location Nisqually Plaza 3 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News on March 5, 1998, and posted in public areas on March 4,1998. The notice Was mailed to adjacent property owners and the applicant on March 3, 1998 4 Existina Land Use. Retail/Commercial Complex 5 Adiacent Land Uses. Commercial 6 Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated Commercial 7 Zonina Chapter 17.26, Commercial Zone C-1 8 Setbacks Side yard - 10 feet 9 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 * RecycleJ paper o Case No VAR-988217-YL Nisqually Plaza Page 2 March 11, 1998 10 Police Protection. City of Yelm APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Commercial Yelm Municipal Code Commercial (C-1) Yelm Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.26 and Chapter 17 96 D. Staff Analvsis The commercial building was construction in 1993 on two tax parcels The building department has reviewed the original construction plans to ensure the building meets minimum fire protection standards for zero lot lines The property was developed in 1993 on two parcels under a different zoning code, today's zoning code would allow for zero lot line development as a mixed use planned development or a master plan development. The proposal for side yard zero lot lines is consistent with commercial development standards C E. Staff Recommendation c The City of Yelm Planning Department recommends approval of the variance as requested by the applicant based on the findings in Section C o c o EXHIBIT I V AR-988217 -YL PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: PURPOSE: Monday, March 16,1 998, at 4:00 p.m. Councll Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing to receive comments on a variance for zero lot lines on an existing developed piece of property. APPLICANT: Gramor Development LOCATION: Nisqually Plaza Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the proposal received by the close of the public hearing on March 16, 1998. Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. Any related documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the City ofYelm, 105 Y elm Ave W., Yelm W A. For additional information, please contact Cathie Carlson at 458-8408. The City ofYelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need special accommodations to attend or participate, call the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meeting. ATTEST City of Yelm DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW TIllS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Thursday, March 5, 1998 Posted in Public Areas: Wednesday, March 4, 1998 Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners. Tuesday, March 3, 1998 o o o EXHIBIT II VAR-988217-YL ApPLICANT'S SUMMARY OF REQUEST City of Yelm Application for Variance Permit Nisqually Plaza SUMMARY OF REQUEST The request IS for relIef from commercial setback requirements that have been added/revised subsequent to the development in 1993 of the Nisqually Plaza shopping center The Applicant has filed a Short Plat application with the City At the tIme of the shoppmg center development, no commercial building side setback requirements existed. The Applicant designed a portion of the shopping center and prepared the Short Plat to not accommodate building setbacks. City of Yelm approval of the proposed Short Plat would place four of the existing buildings (the QFC, Rite Aid, and two adjoining retail structures) into a non-conforming condition with the current zoning code building setback requirements; hence the need for the varIance. With exception of Burger King and Key Bank, which have their own separate tax parcels, eight buildings (seven existing buildings, with provision for another future building) exist on one tax parcel. Because the Burger King and Key Bank structures are all integrated mto the shopping center as one inclusive development, the County Assessor often has difficulty determining which properties and buildings are and aren't part of the shopping center The tax assessments are often in error and require correction. The tenants at the Center pay their proportional share of taxes, based on the share of their space in their buildings. At this time there IS one large tax bill for all seven buildings (WIth a potentIal for another building) in the entire shopping center Like the tax assessor, the tenants are often confused as to which property is or isn't part of the tax bills. The four potentially non-conforming structures, although constructed immediately adjacent to each other and appear to share common walls, actually have a physical separation distance of approximately 6+" between the structural walls. Dividing the shopping center property into logICal, mdlvidual tax parcels that relate specifically to each building allows 1) the tax assessor to more easily and accurately determine the appropnate assessments, and 2) allows simpler and accurate tax distributIons for the tenants. List the provisions(s) of zoning or other standards from which you are seeking a variance. The request IS for relief from commerCial setback reqUIrements that have been added/revised subsequent to the development in 1993 of the Nisqually Plaza shopping center EXHIBIT III VAR-988217-YL VICNNMAP o VICINITY MAP GJ A) a ")]0 1 05 TH A VE Q:: ~:J ~ a a a Q:: Q:: Q:: -J ~ -J Q:: - -J U - <:Z Z ~ -J ~ 109TH AVE u (~ ...J (f) a Z -J Q:: lLJ a ~ -.J ~ -.J 0::: ~ :J Z - U 0::: 0::: U Q (f) c SITE 103RO AVE NOT TO SCALE c c c ORDINANCE NO. 618 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YELM, WASHINGTON, AMENDING Ordinance 555 by amending the City of Yelm Development Guidelines, Chapter 4, Transportation NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YELM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Adoption In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 36 70A. and 35A RCW, the Yelm City Council does hereby adopt the revisions, additions to and/or replacement of the following sections of the Yelm Municipal Code Section 2. Section 4B 030 of the Yelm Development Guidelines shall be amended as follows: City streets are divided into boulevards, major arterials,-mifwf urban arterials, commercial and neighborhood collectors, local access commercial, and residential streets and alleys in accordance with regional transportation needs, the functional use of each serves and Transportation Policy No 11 Function is the controlling element for classification and shall govern Right-of-Way, road width and road geometries. The following list is provided to assist the developer in determining the classification of a particular street. Streets not listed are classified as residential local access streets. New streets will be classified by the City The intersection commonly known as "Five Corners" is described as Yelm Ave (SR 507)/Bald Hill Rd SE/Morris Rd SE/NE Creek St./SR 507 Section 3. Chapter 4 of the Yelm Development Guidelines shall be amended as follows. The roadway sections as identified in List of Procedures, Drawings 4-1 through 4-8B, page 4-44, shall be repelled and replaced with the attached Drawings 4-1 through 4-8B, Exhibit II Ooulevard BoUlevatdSWaleOfWtCetitMllshlna Berry Valley Road SW (beyond commercial section through SW Yelm annexation area) Major Arterials First Street (from Y-1/Y-2 intersection to Yelm Avenue) Killion Road extension (so to Berry Valley Road to Boulevard section) Y-1 (SR-510) Y-2 (SR-507) Urban Arterial Yelm Avenue East and West Mil10r Arterials Bald Hills Road (Y-9 improvements) c Canal Road (inCludihaY-3 improvements) Cd..varas Ctreet (from '(elm AVer'IU6 to Cte'v'ens Coates Connector) First Street (north of Yelm Avenue) Grove Road dMtilUdlrid Y-3 improvements) Stevens-Coates Connector (Y-4 improvements) c Commercial Collectors Creek Street SE Edwards Street NW (from Yelm Avenue to Coates Street SE) rirst Gtreet NC (north of '(elm A';fenue) Killion Road NW (adjacent to commercially zoned areas) Morris Road SE N P Road NW Rhoton Road NW (from NE First Street to NW Rhoton Court) Stevens Avenue NW West Road SE 103rd Street NE (from Yelm Avenue to NE Creek Street) Neighborhood Collectors Bumett Road SE Clark Road SE Coates Street SE Crystal Springs Road (including Y-6 improvements-upon opening of Y-3 west) CullensdRoCi<:j(fmm '(elm Avenue to Coates Road) ~lmgdRg~j:t,iIl Middle RtiadfSE MmaOiidSe MosmariAverltieSE MtiSmariAvenueSw M6i:ima,riVitlWR6aa...NW iiiii!ll(froiiWNlNJlllbllfd.e_bafilll1!ll(se'! s.?~ttl""13~~Ac~13sS (Y-7 improvements) VandmR6adSE Wilkensen Road 93fdAveriMsE 1 fism Avenue Local Access Commercial Edwards Street SW (from Yelm Avenue to Mosman Avenue) Jefferson Avenue NE Jefferson Avenue NW Jones Street SE Longmire StreetSW (to Jones Street) MCKenzie Avenue Sl;tfroffi $l!{ 5bZ tb Becond Street). Railroad Street NW .~i9~Street.s.YY.Jf.r()mJ?~~~Street SE to NW Jefferson Avenue) ~qlg~WI1<'4~I~rsPtltQeoate$J Vah Tri:iffib Stfee.t Second Street SE Solberg Street SW (from Jones Street SE to NW Jefferson Avenue) o City of Yelm Ordinance 618 February 11, 1998 Pg.2 o o c Third Street SE (from Jones Street SE to NE Jefferson Avenue) Local Access Residential Crystal Gprings Road Cullens Road Flume Road SE Fourth Street SE Killion Road NW Longmire Street SW (to Jones Street) Middle Road G[ Mill Road GC Mosman Avenue G[ Mosman A.....enue C'/v' Mountain View Road NVV Ordv;ay Drive C[ Railway Road G[ Railway Ctreet C[ Rhoton Road NV'J (from NW Rhoton Court to Canal Rd G[) Vancil Road G[ 'A'ilkensen Road GE 93rd Avenue C[ 100th Way SE 103rd Street NE (from NE Creek Street to Canal Road SE) All remaining roadways within the Yelm UGA Section 4. Severabilitv If any provisions of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law Passed by the Yelm City Council this 11 th day of February, 1998 ~P0 PASSED and APPROVED' February 11, 1998 PUBLISHED' Nisqually Valley News, February 19, 1998 City of Yelm Ordinance 618 February 11, 1998 Pg.3 GENERAL NOTES 1. NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2, REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDEUNES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA liON ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET UGHTlNG, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE. ECT. 'f r; 0 A'. . . . .... . .. .. . . . .. . ~ . "f .' . ~ . R/W 10' fT1 ~c ::! 5' *'" 3::t: 7' 5' 11'-22' 4' 0 ~~ ~ ~ W -c ~ -4 0 ^ ;:Q ~ ~ fT1 2:; g g r- "Tl {; ~ 0 fT1 ~ ~ VARIES (') ~ "U Q :z -{ ~ CEMENT CONe. BARRIER CURe .. ,,' WITH 1 LANE 22.' WITH 2 LANES o DG4-V..DWO ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... J ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... + ... <t , 64'-106' 10' 10' :cl~ ~~ E~ ~~ s:~ ~:e ~~ ~> -i~ -4rrt c.n:l.J c.n;ij ~ l . '. . .. . . I. . . I" I . . I . . . . R/W 10' fT1 >c u 7' 5' ~:::1 4' 11'-22' 5' ;::C (,II :a w ~ ~ ~~ ....( :I: " ~ 0 ".. fT1 )0 C ~ z :e r- r- -{ CI (') ~ fT1 ~ ARIES fT1 :0 ^ ;Q r- fT1 ~ 1"1 i SHOULDER BALLAST CI TY OF YELM DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS -- BOULEVARD WITH SWALE APPROVED DWG. NO. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OWN. DATE 4-1 AlRf:V.OWO DATE 'f ;: -' 0 . . . , . ..... . ~ ~. ~ . .- Co :f. o' . ~ .' .. o R/W 10' ~3 s' ]' 5' 12'_24tll 4' i:t: 2:< ~ ;l1 m ~ (J) ~ c " :x: ~ ~ ..... 3 0 c S1 ~ r- 0 0 ..... f'T1 ~ ::0 fTt VARIES 3' <t I 62'-100' 16' !:; Q )>< z ~ 2 ~ ~ CEMENT CONe. aARRIER CURB & GUTTER MENT CONC BARRIER CURB ~ --..... ~ "'* 12' Win-! 1 LANt 24' WITH 2 LANES GENERAL NOTES. 1. NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA TlON ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT D<U-tA.OWC o . . o. . . ." . , .. I . . . . 4' ** 5' 12'-24' (J) -l m x AJ " g ". ..... .." r- .." r- 0 (=) ~ ..... :0 R/W 10' rrl l;;c 7' 5' .....= ~c "tl (J) ~~ ~ (5 -l l"'1 Z ~ M :Q ~ ARIES ~ -l n :c "tl Q z -l CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS BOUL-EVARD CENTRAL ISLAND WI APPROVED DWG. NO PUBLIC WORKS OIRECTOR OWN. '-leHtW.owe; DATE . ... <II ~ R/W I 94' 10' l"'1 >c ,,' 6' 6' ,,' ,,' 5' S' 6' ~::j !:;c ;a M-c ~ ~ 2:2 \1 ~~ -c ~ .,,~ ~ ~ " ~ -i l"'1 "T1 ~~ r- ~ ARIES 0 0 (') ~ :u-< r- r- ^ r- Z ,., n ~ ))- ))- )>- r- Z ...c fT1 ~ fTl t"') :r l"'11 ~ Z -c ... 0 . , . . . .. .j . .. ~ .~ ." R/W 10' m ~3 6' s' 5' ,,' !:c 0 ~~ ~ " ~ -( 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ :!l 0 r- VARIES ~ (") > ~ ~ ~ 10% ~ MAX. ....2% '- CEMENT CONe, BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAJOR ARTERIAL GENERAL NOTES: 1. NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED O 2. REFER to RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INfORMA TtON ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE:, EeT APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WN. OATf: 4-2BREV.OWC OG4-28.oWG owe. NO, .4 ., o .. ~ ~ 4 ~ R/W I 10' 7 ' rrt ii;c rT\:::l 6' 5' 11' G' G' 1" 5' 3:;:t: ~~ ~ 22 ~ El~ -4 CD -I C " ~ ~ rT\ rT\ G; :IE lTl ~ r- :!J ~ () c", (") Al-< r- M Z r ", Z VARIES rT\ ~ " Q z ~ R/W \0' ~2% J'T1 ~<= ....,~ 6' z C ~~ ~ ~ ...., ~ " ARIES o CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL NOTES: 1. NO "ON STREETH PARKING PERMITTED. () 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ~ DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMAT10N ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT URBAN ARTERIAL APPROVED OWG. NO, 4-~~CV.OWC PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OA TE WN OQ4-39.DWG c c' F I \ ~ .,. ri,' .. ~ . 4. - " . ~ , - '.' , " . . '.I' , , . ~ .04 .. . ... " . 4 ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' " . ,& , ~ .." ;'- . .':J., \ :. . ,)-J ~ 1- <t R!W 10' VARIES ~~ 2 ~ 5' r :;i' -4 ~"(I)"'O i ~ ~~ (I) ^' ~ ~ ~ "l) Q z -4 R/W S6' 10' r1 ~C 11' 11' S' .,. 5' E ~ ;j ~" i ~ z~ ~ :10 g> ~ ~ ~ VARIES ..., ::!l E;e ~ (; (") ~ ~ ~ ~ -4 2 .... M "tl Q z -l ~2" '- CEMENT CONe. BARRIER CURe AND CUTTER GENERAL NOTES: 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED, 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDIllONAL INFORMA nON ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LlGHllNG, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, Ecr OC4-6e.OWG CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC wORKS COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR APPROVEO owe;. NO. 4-6CNEW.DWG I ~ n \J \ :~ rl .. . lj }. 'l , ./'/ /' 1'// '-...J ~ '.. , 4. . .. ~ < '. . . .~ .. .' . . " - . 4 . " " ' .. . .' .' . ..J' '/~ ~ .. .{ ~-~ ,~ \ I"",, 4 - <t R!W GENERAL NOTES: 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED -2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECll0NS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDEUNES POR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT. OG.-lIl1.DWO R!W 10' '" ~3 7' :r I: t: "tl 2:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VARIES (") ~ :i: ." ~ ~ 10' 5' 0 ~~ S' 7' 16' 16' ~:< {!! "Cl $j ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'Tl (; (") ~ ~ VARIES 1"'1 1"'1 (") ,.. ~ :x; (g z ~ ~ CEMENT CONC, BARRIER CURB ANO GUTTER CI TY OF YELM DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR APPROVED DWG. NO. .-lICl~Y,OWO J J o o o ~ ~// !4 '.0 ~ I / - ( .~ . ~- ~ "/ '/f 1/. '/ "/ '/ / 'l'/~ // ,~ ~ 7' ~ ~ ~O "/ '/ "/ .. R/W ~ 10' :i ~. ~~ 5' 6' 7' ,,' ~:< la "0 "'0 ~ -I 0 ~ ~ l"'1 :E ~ ~ ~ n . ~ ~ ~ "0 fTI ..., VARIES ~ lP[;, ,9 2 " Q z -I II - _2'f '-CEMENT CONe. ~ BAR~IER. CURS AND GUTTER - GENERAL NOTES, 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDEUNES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA nON ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING. P A YEMENT STRUClURE, EeT I 00447BbWO ,J 1 '/ 0.' ~ ~~ ~ / ~ :,.. // ~~'/ ~ , o~ . '/ :% / ~~ R/W 10' ,.... ~s 11' 7' 6' 5' ~ E "a "0 z~ ~ la ... ~ i c ~ ..., ~ ~ <5 C) r- ~ <II '> Z ;;l fT1 ..., 'ij ~ Q~ \~ - MP.". VARIES ~ Q "'0 o Z ... I r. ~~ " '\-' / CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCAL ACCESS COMMERCIAL owe:;. NO. _-TOtle:W,OWG ut.~. I OWN. I CKO I OATt. I - APPROVED o R/W R/W 0 10' ~J 10' ~~ ~2 6' , 7' 11' 11' 7' , s' ~=l i~ "0 ~-o ~ 2:J ~ -a ~ ~ -I i ~ ~ !! ARIES ~ ~ (") ~ ~~ t") :v ~ ~g r ~ ~ g(./\ )>- ~ ~ ~g d ~~ fTl .., :t: fTl "., "0 ~ VARIES 4' z -I ~ 2 ~ 3i ~ U- CEMENT CONe, ROLL~O CURe ANO GUTlER Ct TY OF YELM DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL NOTES: 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. R~FER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL (\ INFORMATION ON STMM DRAINAGE, STREET tJ I...~=NG. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE. ETC. LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL APPROVEO owe. NO. ~ -llONEW.OWO E QEDESTRIAN- ORIEN TED STREETS: ** YELM A VENUE Between Solberg W. and 4th Street E. ** FIRST STREET Between Mosman Avenue SE and Jefferson Avenue NE ** SECOND STREET SE Between Washington Avenue SE and Yelm Avenue E ** THIRD STREET SE Between Washington Avenue SE and Yelm Avenue E ** ALL PUBLIC STREETS Within 1000 feet of the intersection of Yelm Avenue W. and Killion Road NW o () OC4-6a,OWG -l, ~. . \ TREE GRA rES, ryp ~ . . R/W ct I R/W VARIES 12' VARIES VARIES 12' (/) -l -l ~ (5 ;:0 ;:0 0 I"Tl )> )> I"Tl :: ..., ..., :E ..., ..., )> (') (') )> r r ^ ^ r r )> )> z Z I"Tl fT1 _2% CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS TYPICAL PEDESTRIAN- ORfENTED STREET SECTrON APPROVED DWG NO PEDAL 1.0WC DES. OWN CKD DATE c o o ORDINANCE NO. 617 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YELM, WASHINGTON, AMENDING Ordinance 555 by amending the Yelm Zoning Code, Title 17 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YELM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Adoption In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 36 70A. and 35A RCW, the Yelm City Council does hereby adopt the revisions, additions to and/or replacement of the following sections of the Yelm Municipal Code Section 2. Section 17 09 010 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 1709010 Land use or zoning districts established To carry out the purpose of this title, the city is divided into the following districts Low-Density Residential (R-4) , Moderate-Density Residential (R-6) , High-Density Residential (R 1 0) fRa~t), Central Business District (CBD), Commercial (C-1), Heavy Commercial (C-2) , Large Lot Commercial (C-3) , Industrial/Warehouse (I/W) , Industrial (I) and Open Spacellnstitutional (OS) Section 3. The following sections of Chapter 1718 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows Chapter 17 18 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R 10)tl'U14) Sections 1...7.... '1"'8'" 0"'2" 5d . .. . .... ..... . . .. ". . . .... . ....... .... . .. .". . .. . :- :-: .;.;.;.:- :-.' .'~: .' "'. . ," Rt6hiblted uses 17 18 020 Permitted uses A. Specific types of uses permitted in the high-density residential district: 1 Any residential use, including single-family dwellings on individual lots, duplexes and other multi-family dwellings, provided they do not exceed ten foUrteen dwelling units per gross acre and are not less than six units per gross acre, .1i:W1Sid$([Ptdhiblteduiis; {( Kennen~aiepr.dnlblted; o o o ,0'" ~ O$i$QmshU:rahth6seid.sntlfiedQfd&$ciil~dmi$icllQ.ndt;;j:5;()~Oaisnf6hiblte.dl Section 4. The following sections of Chapter 17 24 of the Yelm Municipal Cade shall be amended as fallaws 17 24 020 Permitted uses A. Uses permitted autright are as fallaws 2 !~i~=Jii~~~~;~=1~~~=!~ the R 1 0 zone~ 33 Restaurants, bars, taverns and launges ($XOIUdlhddilViihfotidhS); 17.24 070 rublic right of way Setbacks from public right of '(Nay shall comply 'vvith the requirements of Chapter 17 72 of this title Section 5. The fallawing sectians af Chapter 17.26 af the Yelm Municipal Cade shall be amended as fallaws Sectians 17.26090 17.26 120 Public right af way Heldht Ileight 17.26030 Permitted uses A. Uses permitted autright are as fallaws 1 All uses permitted in the R 10 district subject to the.least restrictive applicable ~I~i~.~l;iii.!il~E a o.W . .pro"l ..e. '.. .' e... eve opmen ..Qccurs.onexls t. g 0. ..o..ree.. r. ...scre.or ti$$: 45 Mobile hame parks and subdivisions, minimum 100 units and 6 units per acre in accordance with Chapter 17 63; ~!: .26 0~~~:-i~~~e~~~:permHtedasproV:tdedfOrinChapter.17;6.6 17.26070 Building lacatian Lacatian af buildings ar structures an site, if adjacent parcels are in same zaning district ar in anather cammercialorindustrial district, shall be as fallaws C Setbacks from frant praperty lines,fiffe.enfeeK shall be in accar-dance vlith Section 1726090 17.26.090 rublic riaht af way. Setbacks from public riaht of ways shall complv with the reQuirements of Chapter 17.72 of this title. , '" ",..................... .. ., ",..... 17H!Snl9nHeignt;Maximomihei~hfd.fbdildindsshaUtrefdifvtee.L City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg2 o o o Section 6. The following sections of Chapter 17.27 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows Sections 17.27080 17.27 110 Public right of way Heiciht Ileight 17.27.020 Permitted uses. A. Specific types of uses permitted in this district are those commercial activities which are more dependent on direct vehicular access than the activities permitted in other districts1~~b~H~~~f:~~tm~~nsitv:6f16unltst)et.acre.as..d.adofa:mlxeduse i~~.=i#==_:. 17.27060 Building location Location of buildings or structures on site, if adjacent parcels are in same zoning district or in another commercial or il1dustrial district, shall be as follows C Setbacks from front property linestftfteenfeet shall be in accordance with Cection 17.27 080 17.27 080 Public right-of "tNay Cetbacks from public right of viay shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 17 72 of this title 1t:~i;O$Q'HelbhkMaxlmumh~,at:lt6~bUild,hd$$h.allb$f6.rlVfeeK 17 27 110 Ileight. Maximum height of buildings shall be forty feet Section 7. The following sections of Chapter 17.28 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows Sections 17.28070 1728080 17.28 082 17.28085 17.28090 Ingress and egress Mjnimuml6bta~a Off street parking Heicihf ........ ..... .. ........... . ....... Parking area and cir~ulatiofl..~~sigl1~~atessahdeQress Minimum floor area OfHstteetbarkihci Ileight t?at'kinbareaaridQlf6m~mbhde$lart .................... . ,. ,.. "............. . """ ." ......'.. ...", ,........... ,..."......'", ,......... , 17\2g;070MiOimUmno6tarea{MinimOm100~OOOsQUatefeetQfato$$ftddrateabetstfOrittitei 1}&~B;080HE@ihKMaximlimheldfit.clfbmldlh(:1s .shallbEi..flflV4hieteeh 17.28 919 08ZIngress and egress 17.28 eae dSS Off-street parking City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg3 o 17 28 eaz 90 Parking area and circulation design 17.28085 Minimum floor ar-ea Minimum 100,000 square feet of gross floor ar-ea per structur-e 17.28090 Ileight. Maximum neight of buildings shall be fifty fi.ve feet. Section 8. Section 1736015 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 36 015 Where permitted Neighborhood commercial developments may be permitted in the following zones S High-density residential district tR-49} rei,14;) , Section 9. Section 17 39 050 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 39 050 Site requirement~~Hr.JIini":lum site requirements shall be as follows E. Front yard setback. fifleettfeeh as required in Chapter 17 72 o Section 10. Section 1740050 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 40 050 Site requirements.HHry1ini'!llJll1 site requirements shall be as follows E. Front yard setback. fifteerifeet as required in Cnapter 17 72 Section 11. The following sections of Chapter 1745 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 45 020 Where permitted Mixed use planned developments may be permitted in the following zones ... S High-density residential district tR-49} tR",14); 17 45 050 Exemptions from certain provisions C A mixed use planned development shall be exempt from the lot standards of Title 16 of this code, but other design standards shall be imposed in the mixed use planned development if such standards are not in conflict with the purposes of this chapter A mixed use planned development shall specifically comply with the standards, if required, for sidewalks, underground wiring, utilities, street width and curbs and gutters Upon final approval, filing of the mixedus.e planned devElI()pment shall be in accordance with the procedures of Title 16 of YelmMuhiciPalCbde this code if any lots are to be sold o City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg4 o o o 17 45 060 Density standards and uses B Density Increase The city may approve an increase in the dwelling unit density of up to 2 Twenty-five percent in the high-density district (R 10) tRd4} , rounded to the nearest whole number, provided that three of the four following environmental and recreational amenities are met. Section 12. The following sections of Chapter 17 60 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 60 030 Where permitted Planned residential development may be permitted in the following land use districts consistent with the development guidelines in Sections 17 60 060 through 1760 140. ...... .... C High-density residential district (R 10) tR1;.41 17 60 050 Relationship to other ordinance provisions C Public Hearing Required Applications for PRDs shall require a public hearing before the planning commission and city council with notice thereof to be given as provided in Chapter 17 96 2 Density Increase The city may approve an increase in the dwelling unit density of up to b Twenty-five percent in the high-density district (R-10) (RM'45, rounded to the nearest whole number, provided that three of the four following environmental and recreational amenities are met: Section 13. The following sections of Chapter 17 61 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows 1761 030 Where permitted Townhouse developments may be permitted in the following land use districts, consistent with the development guidelines in this chapter' C High-density residential district fR-4B} tg;14) B Density Increase The city may approve an increase in the dwelling unit density of up to 2 E F Twenty-five percent in the high-density district (R-10) tR44} I rounded to the nearest whole number, provided that three of the four following environmental and recreational amenities are met. Minimum Parcel Size One (1) acre lntheR~4zone. Maximum Parcel Size The parcel size for townhouse development shall be no more City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg5 o o c 1761 050 Review and approval procedure Townhouse developments shall be approved pursuant to the regulations and procedures established in the platting and subdivision ordinance, as modified below, and the standards of this chapter B Platting A subdivision plat or short plat shall be required for all townhouse developments not proposed to be filed as a condominium so that individual dwelling units are divided into lots with common walls located on lot lines 'Nhen a to'v'v"nhouse de'v'elopment is platted, construction of townhouse d'wellings may commence prior to final plat or final short subdivision approval, provided' 1 The proposed subdivision has received preliminary approval or the short subdivision has recei'v'ed conditional approval, and the necessary legal instruments ha'v'e been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2 rartial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair city enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3 Units may not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat or final short plat approval Section 14. The following sections of Chapter 17 63 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows 1763030 Permitted where Mobile homes are permitted as follows .... ...... A. As a primary use on individual lots in all residential districts (R-4, R-6 and R-49 Rd4 ), B I\saprimary use in a mobile home subdivision of not less than five nor more than ferty tWjhtV acres in the 1 Low-density residential district (R-4), 2 Moderate-density residential district (R-6), 3 As part of a planned residential development as provided for in Chapter 17 60 of this title C As a primary use in a mobile home park of not less than three acres nor more than tv'v'enty fifteen acres Mobile home parks are permitted in the following districts 1 Moderate-density residential district (R-6), 2~~~t~~:~~~~sidential district fR-4B} (g'4}Lwith:~maxitritifuderi$ijvbt$lx 17 63 050 Mobile homes--Development guidelines B Mobile home porches shall not exceed haVe the following maximummihlffiUm ~lmensi~~~iJ~~K~~~~~~~~Rall~b~.~~~~~t~~6~~f;ti~:~~~~gtaepetmahentfdOridat\ons; 17 63 060 Mobile home subdivision design standards--Site area. Mobile home subdivisions shall comply with the same minimum performance and design standards of conventional housing in the zoning districts in which they are permitted However, mobile homes shall not be constructed or used as duplexes The minimum site for mobile home subdivisions shall be five acres The maximum site for mobile home subdivisions shall be ferty twentvacres 17 63 110 Mobile home park design standards--Area and density The minimum site for a mobile home park shall be three acres The maximum site for a mobile home park shall be City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg6 c' c o twenty fjftg~n acres The maximum number of mobile homes per acre shall be eight siX, 17 63 190 Mobile home park design standards--Surfacing requirements. All streets, roads and driveways shall be desidtiijdahd~cibh$IiUctedbbn$i$t~htwlthm~:tY~lmS$veldpment Gmdeiines~ paved to a standard of construction acceptable to the public works department. Interior pedestrian 'walkways, carports and parking areas shall be paved or hard surfaced Section 15. Section 1772080 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 72 080 Development guidelines A. Parking area design shall include 5 Betback of Duildings from rublic Right-of 'oh'ay a, 'Nhen parking is not to be provided betvv'een the building and the right of..way line, the building setback shall be' (1) rorty five feet from the centerline of the right-of~vv'ay; or (2) Ilalf the right of '(,.ay width plus fifteen feet, whiche'v'er is greater b When parking is to be pro...:ided betv'v'een the building and the right of way line, the building setback shall be' (1) r orty~five feet (five feet is for planted buffer strip along right-of.. '(v'ay line) from the centerline of the right of~way; or (2) Ilalf the right of way width plus five feet (fi've feet is f-or planted buffer_strip along right of-'vvay line), whichever is greater; plus (3) The distance needed for appmpriate parking and internal circulation as shown in the design standards of Bection 1772050 &9. Surfacing All parking areas for more than f-our 'vehicles shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that is durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water 1$ Lighting Any lighting used to illuminate any required off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining premises in a R zone 81;, Signs Must meet requirements as set forth in Chapter 15.24 of this code Section 16. The following sections of Chapter 17 80 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows F Type V 2 i~ii=~Iri!lOlliiilI\liiiiill\ilili!llet~_llbeliiOOnlO"'ledwilllJliU"bfu Gl ;t~VI. !E~;i!l~1!i=====~~==~':- City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pgl o bL z '-i!!=~"~~=i'::=n=;ts'll!llifflalllad 61 $hrubs;atl~ast5.Q%6fWhJ6hmdstexhib.ltdeC6ratlVefloraf6tfbliadEk $balr66vsratlea$[5oWdonhEijarid$eabsdaf~a ?~ . .......... ~H.~~~~I~i~g?Q~q~~H.~I~~~~~~~~~~teamaMbedlahtedwnhttees, ..' ....... ... ...Shitlbs.dtddhdb6VetorCtiltiVatedft6'Werbe.dsl TweNtl1 IfEil~~~:=~~I=f~:~b~i~ataa$'aridjQ Al Lanoscartiihasnallc.dnsisltiflrees{snifuibs;:aroundca.Vers:sndtdf ~~~~~s.fH~~~~~iitly~t~~~~g~~~~~~~f@Jj~~if:i~~~~f.#~#~~f~~Mateldlli$ o 17.80.080 Maintenance of plant materials. C The city shall require a maintenance assurance device for a period of one year from the completion of planting in or-der to insure compliance w'ith the requirements of this chapter The value of a maintenance assurance de'vice must equal at least twenty percent of the r-eplacement cost of the landscape materials, and shall be utilized by the city to perform any necessary maintenance, and to reimburse the city for documented administrative costs associated "iv'ith action on the device o The city may accept, as an alternative to a maintenance assurance device, a contractual agreement or bond bet-ileen the owner/developer and a licensed landscape architect, Washington certified nurseryman or 'Nashington certified landscaper, along with a rider or endorsement specifically identifying the city as a party to the agreement for purposes of enforcement. Nothing in this alternative shall be interpreted to in any 'vvay modify the conditions of subsection 17 80 080(8) Co If a maintenance assurance device or evidence of a similar device is r-equired under subsections 17 80 080(O,C), the property owner shall provide the city with an irre'vocable notarized agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the property and perform any necessary vv'ork. r Upon completion of the one year maintenance period, and if maintenance is not required, the city shall promptly release the maintenance assurance device or evidence thereof GC. All trees, plant materials and landscaped areas shall receive sufficient water to be kept in a healthy and growing manner:. Section 17. The following sections of Chapter 17 84 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows Chapter 17 84 o City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg8 c o o SITE PLAN REVIEW Sections 1784030 Reviev... by the planning commission 17 84 010 Generally--Committee membership A. Site plan review and approval shall be required prior to the use of land orbtilldinti for the location of any commercial, industrial or public building or activity, including environmental checklist review, and for the location of any building in which more than two dwelling units would be contained Additionally, site plan review shall be required for any allowed, regulated or special use activity on lands containing a wetland or :~1~6~Jg~:i~~siief:P1~~jfi~j~w~.~ria~ab~~:~al@~ali~~~~f~~i~~b~~heSnepian::review ;.55=====&:=n C6diKClassrn&fiohMa'riuak ekB An application, in completed form, shall be filed for site plan review and approval with the city planning department. An application shall not be in completed form under this section if it fails to contain any of the information and material required under Section 1784060 tte The site plan review committee shall consist of the following members the city planner, who shall serve as chairman, city administrator; the city director of public works and the building official, or their designees Et 17 84 020 Review by the site plan review committee (SPRC) A. TheHsite plan review committee (SPRC) shall revlewsltetilahabdllbatk#tsasr)tovloeCl in\1MCL15Jit~k have the prerogative of refusing to rule on a site plan r-evie'w if in the opinion of the CrRC the site plan application is not complete in accor-dance with the r-equirements of this code B SPRC shall mail notification of the proposed project to owners of adjacent property within 300 feet. &- The CrRC shall within fifteen '(vorking days appro'(e, disappro'.ie or approve 'y'y'ith conditions any site plan submitted to it and accepted for r-evie'~' The action taken by the CrRC will be submitted to the building official for subsequent action on the building permit application. railur-e to act 'vVithin the specified period shall constitute appro'val of the site plan and the applicant shall be entitled to apply for a building permit. Any time required to develop and review an Cmtironmentallmpact Ctatement as required under the provisions of CerA shall not be counted under the time constraints of Cection 17 84 020 Approval of the plan by this section shall not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to comply 'v'v'ith all standar-ds and specifications of this code de The SPRC shall review a site plan and approve, or approve with conditions, site plans which conform to the standards, provisions and policies of the city as expressed in its various adopted plans and ordinances including the applicable sections of the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region Whenever the SPRC disapproves a site plan, it shall set forth in writing its findings which shall specify the particular standards, provisions and policies to which the site plan fails to conform and the reasons why it fails to conform DE All decisions of the SPRC shall be mailed to the applicant and posted at city hall City ofYelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg9 c .SF. The decision of the SPRC shall be final unless appealed a$b.r6.ytde.aJnYMttaha6t~r 15A9d6tllto the planning commission by the applicant, a person viho believes that they ha.....e been negatb...ely impacted by the CrRC decision, or other public agency by filing a written notice of appeal vi'ith the planning commission 'vvithin fifteen days after the date of posting the decision being appealed 17 84 030 Review by the planning commission The planning commission shall re'v'iew site plan applications r-ef-erred or appealed and approve, or appro.....e with conditions, site plans 'v'v'hich conform to the standards, pro.....isions and policies of the city as expressed in its various plans and or-dinances of the city 17 84 040 Appeal of decision to Cilvc.ouocll planning commission A. Appeals of all site plan review decisions may betaken to the Cit;;;o.OUhcil planning commission in accordance with Chapter 41-9615;;49 of the Yelm Municipal Code =Fh-e planning commission shall r-eview a site plan and appro.....e or approve 'vVith conditions if it finds the site plan conf-orms to the standards, provisions and policies of the city as expr-essed in its \"arious plans and ordinances Cimilarly, the planning commission shall disapprove a site plan which it finds does not conform to such standards, provisions and policies o The City Council planning commission shall not approve or disapprove a site plan differ-ent from that approved or disappro'....ed by the CrRC The intent of Cection 17 84 040 is to insur-e that the planning commission and the approval authority make decisions based on the same set of plans If the planning commission r-eceives a site plan different from that considered by the approval authority or by the CPRC, the site o plan shall be r-eferred to the approval authority or CrRC f-or further consideration 17 84 080 Amendment of site plan A site plan granted approval by the SPRC or by the planning commission may be amended by the same procedures provided under this title for original site plan approval 17 84 100 Duration of approval A. Approval of the site plan shall be effective for eighteen months from the date of approval by the site plan review committee or planning commission During this time, the terms and conditions upon which approval was given will not change If application for a building permit is not made within the eighteen month period, the approval shall automatically terminate Section 18. The following sections of Chapter 17 96 of the Yelm Municipal Code shall be amended as follows 17 96 040 Public hearings At least one public hearing on any such proposed amendment, rezone or variance shall be held by ~~~~bOththe planning commission'od.atY~l;lI'~lt 17 96 060 Consideration by city council The planning commission's recommendation shall be presented for city council consideration after a public hearing noticed no longer than twenty working days from the date a decision constituting a recommendation is rendered 17 96 070 Action by city council The city council may accept, modify or reject the planning o City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg10 c c o commission's recommendation and findings or conclusions therein, or may remand the decision to the planning commission for further hearing A decision by the city council to modify, reject or remand shall be supported by findings and conclusions The action of the city council in appr-oving or rejecting a recommendation of the planning commission shall be final and conclusive unless ,(v'ithin thirty days from the date of such action an aggrieved party obtains a writ of certiorari from the Thurston County Guperior Court for the purpose of revievv of the action taken; pre'vided that appeals frem a decision to grant, deny or r-escind a shoreline permit shall be gO'verned by the previsions of Chapter 90 58 RC'N ~~d~&.~~rlioo~i~~[~7~~~:i;:~~j:'~t~&~~i~~"6;~~ij01;rlsciQtofheSUMd6f06art Section 19. Severabilitv If any provisions of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected Section 20. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law Passed by the Yelm City Council this 11th day of February, 1998 'K~/JlLtJ4 Kathryn M olf, Mayor PASSED and APPROVED' February 11, 1998 PUBLISHED' Nisqually Valley News, February 19, 1998 City of Yelm Ordinance 617 February 11, 1998 Pg11 ~0.~~qr;S!at~l:~~~~\~j~\}~;~~i:f};~~~;::~%~\;~~~1itfj/(:~t~~:;~W~~~~~;~~~:;ii~~::::i: j,' 'l';) '''1'' CY:j''''r)''''':;;''\';J. \~j,.~....,,., ~1. ",'.S)Y.I: ;",.&:" ii. ~:. }~./i'" :1. ....'l[.{.,"1' , J,,,;,,,,,.~~,,,'L( : '~\';' '(f":~ ::'1.:;~>' :],~rt~ ,/~".,.'t.' ~~: l;::'~ ';'.I:~._\.\.:.,:,~:.~:.t...\\I!.(I, .~.. fi~"i (~i ::' <~~. /".<:n: p' ,;,~~::f:~_:;, '''~'-',~~ p~""'.;;.6~ :..~::. ~ I !.! ,r.! ;;.~ ";,~.,. ,~t........~...,);~, q"''l{\\,'"'~C'\':;'i'''\''' ,.11 '",yJ\l" "';\.)" ,.,.;f7 ~""';/,"""""I"""1" \J" ~f~ili~llf~~ltilftf'!~!I:l~~ <.' [q r:'t -;ji'ti',;-- ;:'.: ,JlJk"f""', - .:/1\ .c,..~,.'..,~~ [ r;;'".;J r,. ~ II/r,., ",d' ~~fl., ~i~fi '~l. . ":~~f~~~ r~.". ,,/.,.~ ,<,...,4 "(t'!,J,. t-;.:;. ,".,"", t~ .....-. V".':';"'::"", t I I' ~.. "t. .~. , ~h ..... "{."'ts.,, ....... "'1 'I'f~\~' .:,;I( ~~:~~i4~,~,~,JfL ~~ ~I~~~~ <<'r!if .,. .. "'1"\" .-'" ... '';' .. ....J .'" .,. .-".. --...... ..). - '".. ~." ..'s. .i!i~B~.:~~I~] THI HOUSING SCINI New Home Buyers Are Seeking a Sense of Place LEW SICHELMAN C"""nitJ is a gtztden jrJrptopt. /0 grow Ijames Rowe, dev<ibp<r; OJiumlia, Md. In their quest to create better, faster-selling communities, more and more builders and developers are adding a "soft" infrastructure of programs and amenities that will hold their pro- jects together long after they move on. These forward-thinking profe&- sionals see themselves as "social engineers" who not only put in the sewers, streets and sidewalks - the "hard" infrastrUcture that is the backbone of every housing de- velopment - but also the clubs, leagues and events that become a community s heart and soul. "I never heard the terms 'social engineer and 'soft infrastrUcture' until a year ago. Now, 1 hear them everywhere 1 go," says Randall Lewis of Lewis Homes in Upland, Calif. "fhere' s a growing recogni- tion that the soft stuff is really what aIlows us to build the kind of communities that our customers desetve. " V.R. "Pete" Halter, a marketing strategist from Atlanta, sees the trend a little differently. He says builders have always been social engineers. But because the process was driven by local go.... ernment and activists, they haven't been very good at iL Now, however, Halter says the building community is starting to take control, or at least it should. "fhe driving force behind sales today is uses and .activities," the consultant says, "'The house is sim- ply the price of admission. If the place doesn't feel right, (home buyers) are not going to live there. " Large master-planned develop- ments (MPDs) with hundreds or thousands of acres, dozens of builders and lots of money are the clear leader in the social engi- neering movement, thanks to their interpretive trails, sports leagues, small neighborhood parks, sheltered bus stops and vol- unteer programs. These relatively inexpensive amenities tend to bring people to- gether, and are the reason why master-planned projects tend to sell at a better rate than their smaller rivals, even during bad times. "'The successful MPDs are more about sociology than topol- FEBRUARY 9 1998 NATION S BUILDING NEWS o ogy," says Halter. "fhey sell place, not product." But Halter and others believe that thesarne theory applies no matter how big....,. or smaIl- the projecL What's more, they say it doesn't take big bucks, or even. extra buckll, to build in a soft in- frastrUcture. In fact, if done co~ rectly, builders can actually save money. The key is I"ellearch. BuilderS "must do their homework,. says I"ellearch specialist John Schlelniet of Market Perspectives in Ro- seville, Calif. "'They need to \mow what their buyers ihink is impo~ tant. If they can cut out one or tWo amenities they don't really need, it goes right to their bottom lines. Why waste money?" Schleimer has just finished tab- ulating a survey of 500 recent new home buyers in five master- planned communities in Florida. Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and California about rpeir am,enity preferences. The results were somewhat surprising. The top-rated hard<ost ameni- ties were fairly inexpensive paved bike paths, Walking trails and com- munity parks. (c...dmJt<d on pogo 6) New Home Buyers Are Seeking a Sense of Place (c...dmJt<d from poet'> The lowest- rated big-ticket features were golf courses, which are expensive to build and operate. That doesn't mean that peo- ples' interest in golf is on the wane. It isn't. It is still a very pow- erful draw, but only in the right marketplace and with the right customer "'These are nationwide results, " Schleimer stresses. "Each geographic area has its own pref" erences. Builders need to do their own research in their own areas." Nevertheless, only a third of those who live in golf course com- munities actually play the game. And while there is little doubt that having a course right outside the back door enhances housing val- ues, the greens are costly for de- velopers to build and home own- ers to maintain. How do builders solve that predicament? Celebration, the fabulously suc- cessful Disney community in Or- lando, did it by keeping things simple. "We didn't ignore the golf course; it's important to people in Florida," says Disney's Charles Adams. "But we built only a basic clubhouse with a basic snack bar " Still, even though golf is consid- ered king practically everywhere, Adams says that Celebration's trails are it's most important amenity, not golf. Moreover, the community's most.popular water attraction isn't a big, full-feature swimming pool (the community doesn't even have one) It's an in- teractive water fountain where kids can walk in, over and around bursts of water. One of the top rated, less ex- pensive amenities in Schleimer's SUIVey were small neighborhood parks. A park doesn't have to be anything spectacular, just an unimproved place within walking distance where mom can take the kids to play. One of the lowest rated was a community concierge, a full time person who makes reservations, picks up the cleaning or does practicaIly anything else a home owner may want The highest rated social 5 amenity was a strong set of rules for governing the community "Most builders think bU)"'rs don't read the covenants and restric tions," says Schleimer, "but they want control of the quality and char. acter of the place where they live." Another highly desired soft fea- ture was a neighborhood watch program. It outranked guarded entries, another expensive hard cost amenity that is considered a must today. Not that security isn't important It's "vital," says Halter. but only in some places. Further. more, the SUIVey found that home owners would rather have roving patrols than stationary gate houses. Other popular social features included community events such as farmers' markets, founders days and the like. And the most important "emerging" programs - "We had the most handwritten comments on these," says Schleimer - were youth sports leagues, instrUctional classes and seminars, volunteer programs and Internet programs. In keeping with this last set of amenities, Di~ ney not only ran a fiber optic loop around Celebration, but it also created an intranet network that connected all owners to each other So when someone moves in, they get an e-mail address as well as a how<: address. But Di". ney went further by training the firstresiden ts on how 10 use the technology. Then it backed off, al- lowing the first wave of home own- ers to teach the next wave. And now, when a family moves in, their neighbor comes over and helps them get online. "It helps peoph: get to know each other and rely on each other," says Adams. "And it gets the developer out of the picture, because we're going away eventu- ally anyway." Lew SicJulman is a syndicated TMl es- tate and housing columnist from BOOJie, Md. Reprintd I1y pmnissUm. Ci 1997, Uni~d Feature Syndicate. AU rights reurued. Home Buyers Choosing To Live With a Bit Less In a freewheeling discussion on design trends across America, panelists at an American Insti- tute of Architects press confer- ence at last month's International Builders' Show in Dallas observed that despite today's booming economy, many home buyers are seeking out simpler homes like their grandparents had, opting to "buy down" rather than levenlging themselves to purchase the1argest home they possibly can afford. "In the WashingtoIl' D.C. area, we are finding a traditional neigh- borhood design," said W1lllilin De- vereaux,Jr., principal, Devereaux & Associates, located in McLean, Va, "The first-time buyers are pro- fessional, educated young families purchasing 1,600- to 1,800-square- feet homes where one spouse stays home with the kids. These are simple 'grandma' homes with the garage in the rear, porch in the front. Purchasers are buying down and finding they can live with a lit- tle bit less." "Communities are becoming a focal point, and one of the top items individuals look at before u making their decision to buy there is whether they have sufficient walking spaces, or whether they are isolated behind closed doors," said Philip Hove, president of La- guna Beach, Calif.-based Hove De- sign Alliance ArchitectS: "We are seeing a resurgence of garages being moved to the back of the house, accessible by a back street, to make the front look better The materials used on these front porches are much nicer as well. " '"The older popuIationis also buying down as well, " noted Susan Bradford, deputy editor of Builder magazine. "As the baby boomers enter their 50s, they are moving out of the family to a smaller house. But they demand top of the line finishes and detail- ing." Bradford also observed that for many buyers, bigger is still better "We are seeing a movement to- ward infill, and in some cities a tear-down movement is going on. Newcomers are tearing down cot- tages and building new houses as big as possible." Niche markets are strong in California, according to Donald Jacobs, president of JBZ Architec- ture and Planning, located in Newport Beach. "In California, buyers each want their own spe- cific item - a home office, garage in back - and builders are using this demand to create their own niche markets." Panelists noted that builders and architects alike are placing mOTe and more emphasis on envi- ronmental concerns. Whenever possible, they are preserving the existing local topography to keep the area unique instead of level- ing whole land tracts. "New home buyers want a wooded lot and they are willing to pay a premium for it, " said Brad- ford. "Once builders see that com- munities are more marketable when they contribute to the exist- ing environment, it fuels this type of development. " In terms of new trends, the great room remains a popular fea- ture, and living rooms are becom- ing smaller, in many instances being transferred to the upstairs level. "If the living room goes away downstairs, it will move upstairs to the private family area," said Hove, 'The second floor family room is the room of the future," added Bradford, Demographically speaking, Bradford noted that, by and large, young families are still attracted to the conventional cul-de-sac lot in the suburbs, with a back yard and community that is safe for the kids, while young couples, singles without children and empty nesters desire to live closer in to the cities. "We are seeing a resur- gence of lofts in the inner cities," she said. And climate factors keep some things from ever changing, said Devereaux. "The further north you get, you will find a garage at- tached to the home no matter where you are. " Fg,b q /118 f\I;h'Of/ s BV-J I d..! n1 u l-euJ5 u C,. , "\ C' o City of Yelm 105 Yelm :Avenue weSt , 'J . POBox 479 Yelm, Wqshfngton 98597 (360) 458:..3244 ; AGENDA , c.lTY ,OF YELM PLANNING COMMiSSION MONDAY, MARCH 16,,1998 4:00P.M. 'YELMCITY HALL.COUNCILCHAMBERS, 10~ YELM AVE.~ w. YELM WASHINI3-rON 1 Introduction of new Planning ,Commtssion Member 11- ( 2 Call to-Order, Roll Call, Approval. of Minutes - ., February 17, 1998 (minutes will be available at the.meeting) 3 Public'Communications (Not associated with measures or topics' for which public hearings have been held or for which ~re anticipafed )- 4 Public Hearing: , ,Applicant Gramor Development N' W ,Inc LoccHion Nisqually Plaza Mall Proposal Variancefror;n side yard setbacks Staff report e/)closed - 5 J 'Other _ Ordinance No 618, Road Stahda,rds and Ordinance 617,Zoning COd,e Amendments Articles from Nation's ~uilding News, February 9, 1998 ' 6 Adjourn .. , Enclosures'are flvailable to non-Commission. members upon request. . :If YOtlneeq. special arrangements to attend or partj9jpat~ in' this .meeting ,please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458:.3244 ), NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, APRIL 20,1998, 4~:OQ' PM ;~ * Recycled paper ~.~-_I. c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1998 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order by Tom Gorman at 4 00 P m Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E.J Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire Guests. Glen Cunningham-City Council Liaison, Jim Arthur, Molly Fairchild, George Horn, Mike & Bev Malan, Gary Henderson, Marlynn Davis, Mariella Cummings, Rebecca Thomas, John Huddleston, David M Combs, Roland Verrone, Bruce Weiskotten, Jeff Glander, Steven Knopp, Jeff Carlson Staff: Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann, Dana Spivey Members absent: Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes. 98-01 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY E.J CURRY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15,1997 MOTION CARRIED. Public Communications. There were none c Public Hearing. Canyon Ranch of Washington - Applicant: George Horn Proposal. Senior Assisted Living Facility with 118-bed capacity, in-house medical office and 1,600 square foot children's day care center City- Councilman Glen Cunningham left the meeting because the project would also be presented at the 2/25/98 city council meeting for final action Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 4 02 pm Tom then asked if any of the Planning Commission members had a conflict of interest? There was none Tom askE~d if anyone in the audience objects to anyone participating? There was no comment. Tom asked if any member of the Planning Commission had received any information prior to the hearing? There was none Cathie Carlson started out by handing out copies of a letter from Heidi Gould and Jalene Smith from "Breakthroughs in Healing Center" - Olympia, received today, in support of the Canyon Ranch project. Cathie gave the staff report. Tom Gorman asked a question about "Grass-Crete" - Ken Garmann described Grass-Crete as an alternative to paving for the employee parking lot and fire lane Ken stated the Stormwater Design Manual allows Grass-Crete as an alternative to paving T om asked the applicant if he would like to speak? George Horn came forward and explained in detail the project and also told everyone why he is pursuing this project. Mr Horn showed pictures of the proposed project on the large site plans Tom Gorman thanked Mr Horn, and asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak? Steven Knopp spoke enthusiastically of Mr Horn's proposed project. Mr Knopp feels this is a "very well thought out" project, it is a beautiful concept and it has great potential for this community Tom thanked Mr Knopp, and asked for any more comments Also speaking in support of Mr Horn's proposed project were Bruce Weiskotten, Molly Fairchild, Mike Malan and Jim Arthur Tom thanked all speakers for their comments c Tom then asked for comments or questions from the Planning Commission Roberta Longmire asked Cathie why the buffer is the responsibility of the Residentially zoned property rather than the Commercial developer? Cathie stated that the first project to come in bears the responsibility Roberta asked if that is policy or regulation? Yelrn Planning Commission February 17, 1998 Page 1 c Cathie said that the regulation says that when there is adjacent conflicting uses there will be a 15 ft. buffer, and that the code does not specify which zoning or property is responsible, therefore the first project is required to provide the buffer There was more discussion Roberta does not agree that a developer should have to buffer the Commercial use, because the Commercial use is the "higher use" and they should be required to provide the buffer Shelly Badger stated that the Planning Commission could put the decision in a Special Use permit recommendation John Huddleston stated that he feels Mr Hom and himself can work out the buffer problem. Roberta commented that there isn't any assurance that Mr Huddleston will still own the property at the time it is developed Margaret Clapp asked Mr Hom if there is an outside play area for the daycare children? Mr Hom affirmed by pointing out on the large site plan where the play area will be Margaret then asked Mr Hom about the timing of the phasing procedure? Mr Horn stated that it all depends on the marketing of the project - he will do advertising and marketing ahead of time Mr Hom went on to talk about the benefits he will offer to employee's (profit sharing plan for all employee's, medical benefits etc.) Bob Isom asked Mr Hom if he has any background or experience in this type of project? Mr Hom stated no, this will be his first "assisted living facility" project - but he has done many high quality developments Tom Gorman asked Mr Hom if this project is considered a nursing home? Mr Hom said no, this is "Assisted Living" - which requires a boarding home license Tom then asked about an estimated cost per resident per month? Mr Hom said it will be in the $1600-2000 per month, per resident range Bob then asked Cathie if the improvements on Mt. View Road can be put off until something happens on that road? Cathie said yes there is a deferral agreement available Bob asked about the intersection of Burnett Road and 93rd? Cathie said the City is working on that project, there are plans to realign at a ninety degree angle, hopefully it will be done in the next year or so Tom Gorman closed the public hearing at 5 OOpm c 98-02 MOTION BY E.J CURRY, SECONDED BY MARGARET CLAPP TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF PROJECT CUP-988206-YL "CANYON RANCH OF WASHINGTON" BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SECTION C, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION D OF THE STAFF REPORT MOTION CARRIEID ROBERTA LONGMIRE OPPOSED Other: Cathie Carlson stated that the City Council did approve the Zoning Code Amendments and Road Standards with a few changes Cathie then stated that Ed Pitts has resigned from the Planning Commission as of today If anyone knows of someone, please have them submit a letter of interest to the Mayor Margaret Clapp asked Cathie if it was necessary for her to read the staff report word for word during the public hearing? Cathie stated normally she wouldn't need to, but since there were quite a few guests/speakers - the staff report is read for their knowledge Meeting adjourned at 5 05 pm Respectfully submitted, c Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelrn Planning Commission February 17 1998 Page 2 o c c PUBLIC NOTICE The Regular Planmng CommIssion meetmg scheduled for Monday, February 16,1998 has been changed to Tuesday, February 17,1998 at 4:00 pm, m the Yelm CIty Hall CouncIl Chambers at 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm. If there are any questIons concernmg thIS change, please call the CIty Planner, CathIe Carlson at 360-458-8408 /J U~.~ y}/jf/Jvtuc:L A~ P BennIck CIty Clerk/Treasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE ;:;r:~. Pubhshedm the Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, February 5, 1998 If ~.6f.et{ tVt PvJ?I~ a.~S- ~)61.?)i '-../ "C:J ....- c BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALING CENTER 2639 A PARKMONT LN SW OLYMPIA, WA. 98502 (360) 943.6512 FAX (360) 943-8359 February 16, 1998 To CathIe Carlson Yelm CIty CouncIl From. HeldJi Gould OccupatIOnal Therapist, R/ L , Manager Jalene Srmth, Colon HydrotherapIst, Secretary We are writ.ng this letter in support of the seruor-assisted lIvmg facility proposed by George Homi for Yelm and the greater commuruty We have a heahng center 10 the CIty of OlympIa and ourselves live in the YelmlRainer area. We work With clients to treat, rehabilitate, educate, and Improve their quality of hfe through the bndg10g ofwholistlc healing approaches and western medIcal models We have been medical practitioners for over 20 years c We have knqwn George Horn for some time and feel he is an extraordinary person. He IS highly educated and is truly a viSIOnary We are blessed to have an opporturuty for the Yelm community to provide a much needed servIce and environment for a senior assIsted livmg facIlity Mr Horn's concept of improving the lives ofseruor's will be looked upon as a model for the future Senior's wIll be able to regain their health, digruty, self-sufficIency, and pride in such an enVIronment. In addition, many Jobs will be created w~thm the community The day care facihty as well as the classroom for teachmg classes which are open to the community will be a wonderful resource for the community We look forward to partIcIpatmg m thIS facility and smcerely encourage you to take action to pass this proposal. Smcerely, ,/1 ., ri, ~ ~ J l ie.-~v l 'f)~ HeIdI Gould Occupational TherapIst RIL '" '.....,~w,',', SIncer~lr' . -:2jkttf _ ,,--' r; L- Ja1erie SIT{Ith Colon Hydrotherapist, Certified o VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET o Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING: YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 17,1998 TIME: 400 PM LOCATION. YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s). *Public Hearing - CANYON RANCH OF WA./GEORGE HOM o 7V7 lR!;vr -7V?- Yf?~1 d.- 1 d, C) CJ~~~ 7tfSV'T mcc~~ ~" _ u,~c.y /yt/I ~,,~~'=\~ ~ Jf16? ( (.) t1 '? 8'5 CJ T ;~L 9YJ~j7 o o City of Yelm . 105 Yelm Avenue West F 0 Box 479 Yelm. Washingtorr'98597 (360) 458~3244 . I \ Date February 11, 1998 To ," Yelm Planning Commission , From' Cathi~tarIS~y ~laril1er He Case No CUP-~7820E?,yL, Canyon Ranch" Assisted Living Facility , LIST OF EXHIBITS. Exhibit I ~ Public Notice Exhibit 'IJ - Site Map Exhibit III - SEPA Mitigated' Determinatiqn of NQnsignificance "Exhi'bitJV - Vicinity Map .; A. Public 'Hearina Obiective. The Plannin.g Commission must det~rmineif the proposed Residential Care Facility and Daycare is consistent with, the applicable City of,Yelm Municipal Code(s) After considera,tion of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission musUake ' <;me of the following actions request additional" information from the applicant and/or $taff, ~ontinlJe o the p~blic hearing or make a recQmrnendationof action to the City Council ,~ ' o . J . B. Proposal. The applicant has applied for Special Use approval to develop the site as a two- story, 118 unit residential care faCility and a 1,600 square foot daycare The medical offices shown on the site plan are proposed for the uSe of doctors and nurses providing services to residents only , Approximateiy 5 acres 9f the site .will hou'se the structures ~nd associatE;ldfacilities (parking, stormwater, etc.) and 5 acres will 'be developed as a horticultural areawith pathways The proje~t wiU-be constructed in three phases Y, C" Findinas. , , 1 Proponent George Hom" 2 Locatiori East sid~ of Bumett Road, south of. Prairie Vista Residential Development Tax Parcels 21713340200 and 21713340000 " 3 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing waspuplished in. the. Nisqually Valley News o~ February 5, 1998, and posted.in ,public areas on February 4, 1998 Tbe notice' was mailed to adjacent property owners and 'the applicant on Fel;>ruary '3, 1998 \ 4 Existinq Land Use The parcel is vacant and approximat~ly 10 acres 5 Adiacent Land Uses, Residential to thenorth.and west,v~cant to the south Burnett Ho~d :abuts the,western propertyl!ne'" and Mt. View Ro.ad abuts the' eastern property line" ' " 6 Comprehensive Pian The site is designated Moderate Density Residential I) &cfckd.paper c c c Case No CUP-978206- YL Canyon Ranch of WA Page 2 February 11, 1998 7 ZoninQ Chapter 17 15, Moderate Density Residential District, (R-6) and overlay zone, Chapter 17 66, Special Uses 8 Transportation and Site Access. The street network adjacent to the main entrance of the site is Burnett Road with Mt. View Road on the eastern property line No vehicular access is requested from Mt. View Road The Yelm Development Guidelines, Chapter 4, classifies both roads as neighborhood collectors and requires the project proponent to improve both roads from centerline Improvements would consist of core road improvements from centerline, planter strip and sidewalk, Consistent with City of Yelm Ordinance 580, Concurrency Ordinance, a Congregate Care/Assisting Living Facilities generates 0 17 new peak hour trips per unit and a day care facilities generates 11 67 new peak hour trips per every 1,000 square feet. As proposed the development would generate 20 new pm peak hour trips by the assisted living facility and 19 new pm peak hour trips by the daycare for a total of 39 new pm peak hour trips 9 ParkinQ. Requirements for the site require one parking stall for each two beds, plus one per employee based on the greatest number of care employees on a single shift and one parking stall for every 300 square feet of daycare space The project proposes 118 beds with the daytime shift as the largest with twenty employees and a 1632 square foot daycare The total parking requirement for the site is 84 parking stalls ADA stalls will be provided within the required stalls and meet the requirements of the American Disabilities Act. The facility will have two vans to provide for resident transportation Chapter 17 72 090, Incentives for reducing the number of parking stalls, allows for a 25% reduction in parking stall requirements when a private van pool operation is provided by the development. A 25% reduction would require the project to provide 63 parking stalls As required under Chapter 17 72 060 a loading area is proposed 10 Wastewater The project will be served with existing capacity at the Sewer Treatment Plant. There is a 4" collector force main located on Burnett Road which is subject to a latecomers fee of $6236 76 Currently there are no lines along Mt. View Road 11 Water Supplv The project will be served with City water There is a 10' water line located along Burnett Road which is subject to a latecomers fee of $4,325 58 Currently there are no lines along Mt. View Road 12 Dralnaae/Storm water The City adopted the DOE Storm Water Manual as the City standards for storm water treatment and control A Preliminary Drainage Report and Design for the project was prepared in compliance with City Standards c c c Case No CUP-978206-YL Canyon Ranch of WA Page 3 February 11, 1998 The preliminary report indicates the use of grasscrete for the employee parking area and fire lane Grasscrete is an alternative to paving which is allowed under the City stormwater standards A final report and design is required with civil plans 13 Utilities The site is served by Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas) and Yelm Telephone 14 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 15 Police Protection City of Yelm 16 Landscapina and Veaetation Plan As required by Chapter 17 80, the applicant included a conceptual landscape plan with the land use application In general the conceptual landscape plan addresses the basic landscape requirements Section 17 80 0508, requires a Type I landscaping buffer to significantly separate conflicting uses and land use districts The adjacent property to the south is zoned commercial (C-1) and the proposed use (type and size) in the moderate density residential district is a significantly conflicting use Therefore, the applicant shall be required to provide a fifteen foot buffer along the southern and northern property lines to provide a very dense sight barrier and physical buffer between uses Chapter 14 16, Protection of Trees and Vegetation, requires an applicant to submit a plan that includes the location of all existing vegetation and natural features and whether they are to be preserved The applicant has provided this information No exisitng vegetation is proposed to be incorporated into the final site design A final landscape and irrigation plan is required prior to construction to ensure compliance with the code 17 Environmental Review After review of the environmental checklist, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MONS) was issued on January 30 1998 Provided the applicant meets the applicable development standards of the Yelm Municipal Code and complies with the recommended conditions of approval the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Canyon Ranch of Washington, CUP-988206- YL, be approved, based on the findings in Section C, and subject to the conditions in Section 0 of this report. 1 The applicant shall provide the City with daily consumption calculations to determine the number of Equivalent Residential Unit's required to serve the facility with City water and sewer 2 The applicant shall connect to the City water and wastewater systems All improvements c o c Case No CUP-978206- YL Canyon Ranch of WA Page 4 February 11, 1998 necessary for the connection are the responsibility of the applicant. 3 The applicant shall pay a water line latecomers fee of $4325 50 The latecomers fee is payable at time of building permit issurance 4 The applicant shall pay a sewer line latecomers fee of $6236 76 The latecomers fee is payable at time of building permit issurance 5 Civil plans shall include the location of all on-site wells and any wells within 100' of all property lines 6 The applicant shall submit a final utility plan for approval by the Public Works Department. 7 The applicant shall mitigate traffic impacts to the transportation system Mitigation includes payment of the Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) for 39 pm peak hour trips generated by the project. The total TFC is $29,250 00 and payable at building permit issuance Because the project is proposed to be built in three phases the TFC can be paid proportionate to the building permit being issued for each phase 8 The applicant shall be responsible for all improvements to Mt. View Road as required by the Yelm Development Guidelines Improvements shall include core road improvements, planter strip, sidewalk, street lighting and landscaping as required for a Neighborhood Collector Street The applicant may enter into an agreement with the City for the deferral of improvements 9 The applicant shall construct all improvements to Burnett Road as required by the Yelm Development Guidelines Improvements shall include core road improvements, planter strip, sidewalk, street lighting and landscaping as required for a Neighborhood Collector Street. 10 The applicant shall submit a final storm water report and design for approval by the Public Works Department. 11 The applicant shall provide fire protection to the buildings as required per the Uniform Fire Code Minimum hydrant coverage to the structures is a 150' radius The applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the Public Works Department. 12 A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval The final landscape plan shall be in compliance with Chapter 17 80 and provide all required buffering_ No construction shall occur on site until such plan is approved by the City 13 The refuse area shall be screened and landscaped per Yelm Municipal Code 14 The applicant shall provide a minimum of 63 parking stalls 4 ~ITY OF YELM I=XHIBIT I PUBLIC NOTICE CUP-97 -8206-YL o o o ----- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: PURPOSE: Tuesday, February 17, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing to review APPLICANT: George Horn Project Location: East side of Burnett Road Project Description: The proposal consists of a senior assisted living facility with a 118-bed capacity, in- house medical office and a 1,600 square foot children's day care center Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the proposal received by the close of the public hearing on February 17, 1998. Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. The application and any related documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the City of Yelm, 105 Y elm Ave W., Yelm W A. For additional information, please contact Cathie Carlson at 458-8408. The Yelm City Council will receive the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the project at the City Council meeting on February 25, 1998. The Council will take action on the proposal at the February 25, 1998 meeting. The City ofYelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need special accommodations to attend or participate, call Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meeting. ATfEST City ofYelm 1~1 LiJIU-, ~ 0J/II/I1II1. Agnes~ennick, City Clerk-Treasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW TillS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News. Thursday, February 5, 1998 Posted in Public Areas Wednesday, February 4, 1998 Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners. Tuesday, February 3, 1998 Date: February 17, ~998 I ~ UH- ! I t I , pi, .... , f ,tl f i --------- pih, II n Ii.: Hji !: 1:1 if ~".I , ! n ~I HI < i ~ i ~ ~ I ~ , t , i . ~ - I I II i , .. it t t I 'I' U II, H p Ii i ~I I , , .11 ~-I ,~ I---.J ~ ~!!l"tl ~ Z i;;l~ ~ 'II! ~ ~ e N~ :u . '\i Z -< I ITY OF YELM XHIBIT II \ J ... ,0. feE I" ~ II! 1111 ! -1= i I ~ \ · I.' i I ';1 . I 11! I: 11 1! (\ J SITE MAP CUP-97 -8206-Y i! ~ -~-h-.- ...... BURNETT '&.. ~- ... ... . ~--t=~-i--- --- I , I ~---- - ROA~ ;u. ~....._~~ ... " " "- .... , , , .... / _//oJ> ... , " ..- - - - - - --. , ...... PREUlAlNARY SITE PLAN ~ I JEFFREY B. GLANDER " . -., . So r ASSOCIATES -- N ..!. ........... ...--. aM .......... ;;.m.r ~. YELM REJUVENATION CENTER 1IUI. ___ Date: February 17, 1998 ~ITY OF YELM ~XHIBIT III MONS CUP-97 -8206-Y 8 .~ J (\ J SEPA NO. 8206 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Proponent: George L. Horn Description of Proposal Senior assisted living facility with 118 bed capacity and a 1,100 sq ft daycare Location of the Proposal East side of Burnett Road SectionfT ownship/Range SW 1/4 Section 13, Township 17N Range 1E, Tax Parcel 21713340200 Threshold Determination The City of Yelm as lead agency for this action has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency This information ls..available to the public on request. ConditionslMitigating Measures. SEE ATTACHED Lead agency' Responsible Official City ofYelm Kathy Wolf, Mayor January 30, 1998 5'00 pm, February 13, 1998 Ka~a1;!4 Date of Issue Comment Deadline This Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 340(2) Comments must be submitted to Catherine Carlson, City Planner, at the address below by 5'00 p.m , February 13, 1998 You may appeal this determination to the Yelm City Council, at above address, by submitting a written appeal no later than 5'00 p.m , February 19, 1998 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Agnes Bennick, City Clerk, to learn more about the procedures for SEPA appeals. This MDNS is not a permit and does not by itself constitute project approval The applicant must comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Yelm prior to receiving construction permits which may include but are not limited to the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Title (17), Critical Areas Ordinance (14.08), Storm water Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual (DOE), Uniform Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Title (14), Road Design Standards, Platting and Subdivision Title (16), and the Shoreline Master Program DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, February 5, 1998 Posted in public areas January 30, 1998 Copies to Dept. of Ecology w/checklist All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list. Date: February 17, 1998 ':ITY OF YELM :XHIBIT III MONS CUP-97 -8206-Y o o o ATTACHMENT SEPA CASE NO 8206 This Mitigated Determination of Non Significance is based on the project as proposed and impacts and mitigation reflected in the following . Environmental Checklist (dated November 5, 1997, prepared by George Hom and revised on January 22, 1998 by David Combs) . Preliminary Stormwater Report (dated December 18, 1997, prepared by SCA Engineering) . Traffic Letter (dated November 7, 1997, prepared by SCA Engineering) And the following conditions 1 The project proponent will be responsible for a Transportation Facility Charge as provide for in Chapter 15 40, Concurrency Management. The projected number of new pm peak hour trips is 39 2 The project shall provide one passenger van for every 60 residents Passenger vans shall have a minimum 8-person capacity Date: February 17, 1998 ~~n -:~~~ rN .0 ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I\C\N\ \ 1 au-- CUP-97 .!d206- 'l ~-~ J .,. <1'1i tU\Q\U.Vdo ~ 'J. tJ) ~ "^ Cf\ ~ ~ , t ~\ ~ 9 ~ ~"''lI~ ~"..';\' \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ 1 .-\ o ~ ~ -- oate: febfuaf'/ 17, ~ \ c City of Yelm 3 0 .( A 5. o 105 Y~lm Avenue West POBox 4~9 Yetm,' Washington 98597 (360) 458:3244 YELM. . WASHINOTDN AGENDA CITY ~OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17,1998'. 4:00 P~M. YEL.M CITY HALLCOUNCILCH~MBERS, 10~ YElM AVE,. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll, Call, Approval of Minute$ . December 15; 1997 . 2 Public, Communications , (NQt associated with measures or topics Jor,which public hearings have, been held or for which are anticipated.) Public Hearing: C;anyon Ranch of W~shington, Bu'r/')ett Rqad Applicant: George ,Hom ' Proposed Senior Assi.sted Livihg Facility with 118-pedcapacitY,jn-house medical office' , and 1,600 square foot children's day care center Staff.reporfenclosed _ Other:'Cathie C~rlson - report on .city Council' action on' Zoning Code' Amendments & Road Standards . Adjourn - , Enclosures are avail~ble to non-Commission members upcmrequest., ' If YOl.r need special arrangements to attend or,p~rticipate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall,. at 458-3244. ' . NEXT ,REGULAR MEETI'NG, MONDAY. MARCH~6~ 19984:00 PM , " ' * lW:yckd.ptipu '\~ L~ ~ c' (\ 0' PUBLIC NOTICE The January 20. 1998 Regular Planning Commission meeting has been CANCELLED The next regular meeting of the Yelm Planning CommissIon will be held in Council Chambers at Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W , on Tuesday, February 17,1998 at 4 pm If there are any questions concerning this change, please call the City Planner, Cathie Ca9fon at (360)458-8408 ~( /~ ~~/)lJfl.u:L A 'es P Bennick CI y Clerk/Treasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, January 15, 1998 Mailed to the Planning Commission mailing list, January 14, 1998 Posted at Yelm City Hall, Court and Yelm LIbrary, January 14, 1998